it. maybe that is the best thing. thanks very much, ma'am. host: >> live pictures this afternoon. we're waiting for the rules committee for the foreign aid bill. they've been in recess two hours now. likely working behind the scenes. news now as the freedom caucus urged its members on the rules committee to vote no on the package. house freedom caucus has three members, chip roy, massey, and

norman of south carolina, these three facing criticism as cnn was reporting new york republican mike lawler called for their removal if they do not vote in line with the g.o.p. new from house speaker mike johnson who stated on x the house will not be changing the rules for a motion to vacate which some house republicans have called for. speaker johnson citing the fact a rules change would require a majority vote in the house. and we'll take you now to some of the rules debate on this from earlier.

>> the rules committee will come to order. good morning, everyone. thanks for joining us. president biden's weaknesses not only have shattered our national security but it shattered global security. from the disastrous retreat in afghanistan to an unprecedented attack on our greatest ally, the president's weakness has created a state of affairs that was unthinkable just a few short years ago. america and our partners deserve far better. house republicans have warned president biden time and time again of a simple truth, weakness invites aggression. he obviously did not listen. but don't take my word for it, take the word of president obama's former secretary of defense, president bush's former

secretary of defense, secretary gates where he said joe biden has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades. end quote. nevertheless, we are stepping up and delivering critical aid to our allies in a world destabilized by this failed leadership. today the rules committee will consider several bills designed to aid israel, taiwan, and ukraine as they each face grave threats to their very existence. they're in these dangerous situations not in spite of president biden's leadership but because of it. h.r.8034 the israeli appropriations act will provide much needed material support to the jewish state as it faces twin threats from hamas and the islamic republic of iran. for decades, america's iron clad support for israel always formed the foundation of their

security. his financial appeasement to iran added fuel to the fire. they renewed a sanctions waiver last month and gave iran access to more than $10 billion. it certainly didn't make it harder for the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism to wage a campaign of violence. h.r.8034 delivers $26.38 billion to support israel in its effort to defend itself against iran and its proxies and reimburses the united states military for operations in response to recent attacks. notably, the legislation sets aside $4 billion to replenish iron dome and david sling missile defense systems. israel desperately needs this

aid now. iran wasn't the only one taking note of president biden's weaknesses. china is happy to watch the united states abandon our place of leadership and undoubtedly placed taiwan in its crosshairs because of this. we can't stand by in the likelihood of another foreign adversary is invaded on his watch. the indo-pacific supplemental appropriations act provides over $8 billion to continue efforts to counter communist china and ensure a strong deterrence in the region. within that figure, $3.3 billion is appropriated for submarine infrastructure and $2 billion for the foreign military financing program. we cannot afford to wake up in a world where we are too late when it comes to taiwan's aid. ukraine is another flash point in biden's broken world order. before vladimir putin's brutal

invasion, the president recklessly signaled he would accept, quote, a minor incursion, close quote, the ukrainians pay for that horrific step each and every day. h.r.8035, the ukraine security supplemental appropriations act provides for critical funding while also safeguarding american contributions. the bill supplies $13.8 billion for procurement of advanced weapons systems, defense articles and defense services. it also appropriates over $23 billion to replenish defense articles and services provided to ukraine. finally, the rules committee will consider h.r.8038, the 21st century peace through strength act. this last item will bolster the tools we have available to respond to the evolving threats in president biden's dangerous new reality. as always, i know i can look forward to a wholesome and robust debate on the pressing issues that are facing this

nation. i'm happy to yield to our ranking member, mr. mcgovern, for any comments he wishes to make. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. chairman. all i can say after hearing your opening statement is wow. you guys never miss an opportunity to blame your own incompetence on joe biden. i mean, you blame joe biden for everything. i'm surprised you didn't blame him for the earthquake in your opening remarks. you don't blame iran or any of the bad players but everything is blamed on joe biden. i guess that's the republican talking points. but it's unbelievable to me it's taken this long for this republican majority to do their job. the incompetence and the indifference is stunning. i mean, i really can't believe it. i don't expect much of this republican majority but this is

really beyond the pale. the senate found common ground months ago and the world has been watching and our allies have been waiting and waiting and waiting for the g.o.p. to get their act together. well, guess what, our allies are out of time. and the republican party is out of excuses. the ukrainian people have suffered as a result of this g.o.p. majority. ukrainians are engaged in a brutal war, not of their own choosing, a brutal war against an expansionist russia at the hands of vladimir putin who wants to rebuild the old soviet union. mark my words, he will not stop at ukraine. i'm telling you right now, if we don't help ukraine fight for their democracy to protect their sovereignty, this war will not end, it will grow. it will grow. this republican delay has helped

putin and hurt ukraine. maybe that's what the intent is. but that's the purpose of all of this and it really is horrific. so again, i want to congratulate my republican colleagues for finally realizing the gravity of the situation and the urgency with how we must act. this is the right thing to do but it's also what this country wants. 6-10 americans favor providing both economic assistance to ukraine and sending additional arms and supplies to the ukrainian government. cbs even reports that a huge number of republicans want to help ukraine. because they know if ukraine falls, putin will not stop there. he will not. he will keep going until he drags all of europe into his vicious war. now, i hope my colleagues across the aisle understand that is what is at stake here. and i'm hopeful that now we can

come to the table, tune out the extremism, and do what our constituents want us to do. that is why we are sent here. to compromise. to work in a divided government to get things done. you know, compromise is not a dirty word. it's our job, especially in divided government. i hope my friends use this to reflect on how their majority is going. it's time to stop following the maga extremists off a cliff and time for all of us to make sure that our allies get the aid that they need. this is -- this is a moment of urgency. this is a time for us to act. and it may even be too late. i hope it's not. but i hope that we will act and act decisively and quickly. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. burgess: the chair thanks

the gentleman for his remarks. without objection, any statement our witnesses have will be included in the record. i'd like to welcome our first panel, no stranger to this committee, tom cole, mr. cole, we're grateful to have you back, reynoso delauro from the committee of proceedings. mike "mike & mike" mick mccaul. mr. cole, i can't tell you how badly we miss you and you're recognized and i welcome your testimony. mr. cole: you miss me. i don't think anybody else does. but it's a delight to be back here. chairman burgess and r.b.i. mcgovern and distinguished members of the rules committee, i want to thank you for your warm welcome. when i cycled off the rules committee last week i you no i'd be back in this room and the

witness table at some point and didn't anticipate it would be this soon but we see the events move at their own speed in the house of representatives. i come before you to testify on a number of security bills that provide much needed defense assistance to our allies and partners around the world. we're confronting a tinderbox of uninvited aggression on multiple fronts and america must stand firmly on the side of freedom. peace through frank cannot be delivered through appeasement. taken together they protect our friends and partners and replenish stockpiles of ammunition, weapons and supplies. it's not only about safeguarding the ideals of democracy and peace but also central to our own national security. tyrants and dictators at the helm of china, russia, and iran show disdain for sovereignty and they're acting on it. we are here because the shared order of the free world is at risk. it's not hypothetical and it's

not pie herebily. not hyperbole. the ukrainian people fought valiantly and refused to let moscow take their homeland. but it's a war of attrition. it's incumbent upon ukraine's allies to provide aid so they can continue to resist. israel is literally on the front line. last year hamas launched a vicious attack on our great ally. 1,200 israelis were murdered and hundreds taken captive. 130 hostages including american citizens remain imprisoned in gaza today. iran has taken note and is looking to prolong violence in the region. this past weekend, tehran executed an unprecedented aerial assault on israel firing hundreds of missiles and drones. both of these were intercepted by israeli forces and those of israel's friends and allies,

including the united states. but the threat from this known state sponsor of terrorism cannot be understated. nor can the threat from iran's proxies, not just hamas but hezbollah, the houthis and others, all of which are capable of and willing to commit themselves to warfare against israel. taiwan meanwhile faces real and serious threats from the chinese communist party which looks across the taiwan straits and into the south china sea. taiwan continues to show the world what a free and democratic china could look like, and its security is critical to american security interests in the asian-pacific theater. we're at an inflection point and i'd remind everyone here to remember history. we're living in what feels like a time in the past. in the 1930's, aggressive nations probed for weakness seeks any openings to exploit their neighbors. at the time the democratic west had opportunities to confront and end this aggression and

failed to do so. from that failure, nazi germany, facist italy and a militarized japan took the message that we could do and would do nothing to stop them. the result was a bloody and devastating war accumulating in the largest and most destructive and deadliest war in history. the eyes of the world are upon us again today. russia's watching, iran is watching, the chinese communist party is watching. and what are we going to show them? failing to pass this critical national security aid is a gift to our adversary. i would encourage all members to vote to support this critical legislation, and i want to thank again this committee for your kind invitation to appear before you and testify today. i look forward to your questions. mr. burgess: thank you, gentlemen. mr. meeks, you're recognized. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you, r.b.i. -- thank you, ranking member. i wish we were not here. i believe the appropriate thing would have been months ago, we just simply passed a bipartisan supplemental that the senate passed and accept over because the clock is going tiktok on our allies. we need to get them what they need immediately. ukraine is on the brink. they need this supplemental and what's contained in it. in fact, they needed it months ago. the camera of history is rolling and watching what we're doing at this time. this is a critical time in the

history of the united states of america and our allies all around the world. the quickest way to get them what they need would have been to pass the senate supplemental bill. it would be signed today. and the ammunition needed by our ukrainian allies, our israel allies, our friends in the indo-pacific, and the humanitarian aid desperately needed in gaza and around the world would be out. but here we are. and i have to say that this has been an utterly chaotic process the past 72 hours to put together a so-called side car supplemental package. and i'm very disappointed that every component bill in the foreign affairs section of this legislation was sponsored by the majority. that is not the appropriate way

to craft bipartisan legislation. democrats have a tremendous number of good ideas on how to strengthen our sanctions and impose costs on bad actors and human rights violators around the world. yet those views are currently not reflected in this bill. that said, context is important. and the context is this. the ukrainian army and ukrainian people have shown tremendous bravely and astounding courage to resist the invasion of their nation by putin's forces. they have the will to fight. they've shown that for over two years. they have the ability to fight and win. they also have shown that. we just need to give them what they need. they need the weapons to do so. and right now they are running out of everything from defensive

missiles to basic ammunition. reneed to give them aid. israel has endureed a offensive from iran. and people facing humanitarian crisis, it would be against my values not to support individuals facing deprivation and starvation. we need to act to prevent a famine. given this context, i will support h.r.8038, the 21st century peace through strength act. this is not a bill i would have drafted. all of the legislation in my jurisdiction was sponsored, as i said, by the majority. the process of putting this paquette together has been quite frustrating. one bill which never was negotiated, and i still do not know how it ended up in the

package, includes a new sanctions authority without a waiver. but for the most part the collection of legislation included in the side car is bipartisan and the republicans were willing to make some notable changes to improve the legislation. on repo pertaining to the siege of russian sovereign assets, there's no doubt russia should pay for its crimes for their actions in ukraine. as vice president harris put it this bill irons out legal confess and makes sure the united states did does not act alone but rather in a coordinated fashion with our g-7 partners. and there is an array of middle east sanction bills included in this package including several we voted on this week. reportedly, also, the majority agreed to add a humanitarian

exception in three of the bills that i had long been requesting. i hope that going forward we can make, including these exceptions as a matter of course rather than last second negotiations. but i do want to thank my friend and chairman of the foreign affairs committee, mr. mccaul and his team for the good faith negotiations on the middle east section of the legislation, including the incorporation of certain exceptions and carveouts that i believe regards our moral credibility without undermining our toughness, which is the policy on our committee, mr. mccaul and i do try to work together in a bipartisan way and i appreciate working with him. the legislation also contains several bills in the financial services and energy and commerce lane. important changes were made to these bills. while i voted against h.r.7520 on the floor, as i am concerned

it is a blank check authorization that could go far beyond what people in washington are talking about, i think the bill at least took a step in the right direction with a more realistic time frame for complex divestiture of process. and again, i would point to the context of the moment. i've been saying for months, we need to support our friends and allies around the world now. this is not idle talk. it was not political talk. it was a fact. we need to support ukraine immediately. we need to fund humanitarian aid. we need to back israel and taiwan and cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. and therefore, i support this legislation and hope i can continue to do so if amendments are made to this bill. and i yield back. mr. burgess: the chair thanks the gentleman. chairman mccaul, my apologies, i should have gone to you as chairman first. now you're recognized.

we're anxious to hear what you bring thousand. mr. mccaul: chairman burgess, it's great to say that. congratulations on your chairmanship. ranking member mcgovern. this is a critical time in history. in my 20 years in congress, we are at a real pivotal point in history as we look at the map and our adversaries. mr. meeks and i go to poland to see the refugees fleeing out of ukraine and would have taken a black and white photo and would have looked like 1939 and that's what we were told is this is 1939 all over again. and after the fall of afghanistan, we saw the russian federation moving towards ukraine and knew it was going to happen and we warned them and it happened. prior to that, chairman xi at the olympics met with putin. they're allies.

chairman xi is watching what happens in ukraine to determine whether he invades taiwan in the pacific. and now the ayatollah raised his ugly head. these dictators, including north korea, are all tied together. and the idea we can separate -- we don't pick and choose our enemies. they choose us. and this bill is probably one of the most important votes we'll have in our careers because it does confront all of those threats. we saw last saturday rockets coming in from iran for the first time out of history out of iran into israel itself. over 300 of them. fortunately 99% of them were shut down because we have provided them with the necessary air defense. but looking at ukraine, it is a dire situation. i talked to the ambassador yesterday, car keif is on the verge of collapse, second

largest city in ukraine and the power grid could go out any day. time is not on our side and i'm glad we're finally here to discuss this. also, that will get chairman xi's attentions in taiwan and the threats i personally received when i visited that island surrounded by battle ships and aircraft carriers and threats. their intention is very clear and what happens in ukraine as the japanese prime minister said this is joint session, what happens in ukraine affects taiwan. and you want to be churchill or you want to be chamberlain. i want to thank the speaker. the speaker's had a lot of pressure on him. very difficult circumstance. i was with him the night before he made his decision.

and he takes it very personally and he's a man of faith and doesn't wear it on his sleeve but i think he got down on his knees and prayed for guidance and said tell me what is the right thing to do here? then he told me the next day, he said i want to be on the right side of history. i want to be on the right side of history. and i think he is following the legacy of churchill. he is choosing to confront the generational threat posed by this unholy alliance of russia, china, and iran. as reagan said, it's time for choosing speech, i believe the issues confronting us crossed party lines. as chair of the foreign affairs committee, i believe partisanship stops at the watership's edge. after october 7, we were crafting a resolution and some would say we need to make that a partisan resolution. mr. meeks and i disagreed with that. we need to speak with one voice,

as one nation when we're addressing it particularly or adversaries and need to know we're not divided as a nation and we sit in democracy. but in matters of this, we need to be unified. and that's why i'm proud to support the 21st century peace through strength act which is largely made up of house passed bipartisan bills. i want to thank mr. meeks for his contributions. it provides critical security assistance to our allies. we need to show freedom and democracy. it includes my bipartisan, bicameral reapo act that calls on the biden administration to transfer frozen russian assets in the united states to ukraine or reconstruction and other purposes like direct budget support.

it's a narrow targeted piece of legislation that ensures russia pays for the war it started, that russia pays for its war crimes. putin's war crimes and genocide cannot be reversed by money, however. the horrors, the pictures we see, murdered civilians like women and children and maternity hospital bombs cannot be brought back and the trauma will live on in that country for generations. we have a moral responsibility. there's human suffering. critical infrastructure can be rebuilt and making russia pay for that is fiscally responsible on behalf of our constituents. let them pay for it rather than the american taxpayer. putin caused this devastation

and putin can pay for it. this ensures americans, especially our children, will be protected from the maligned influence of the c.c.p., control tiktok. this app silently gathers americans' personal data in their pockets and manipulates its users allowing the c.c.p. sensors to dictate the contents its users seek. tiktok is the modern day trojan horse of the c.c.p. to prevail and sort america's personal information. this legislation is the first step in protecting americans against foreign subversive data collection. i'd like to thank ranking member pallone for this contribution. it also targets illicit fentanyl supply chain from the chemical suppliers in china to the cartel s that traffic the drugs

from mexico. mr. synthetic opiods killed americans and over 200,000 since this administration and more than world war ii and vietnam combined. it's time for this to end p. my bill also includes the most comprehensive sanctions against iran that congress has passed in years, including the ship act that imposes tariffs on foreign vessels or refineries that deal in iranian oil. imagine this, mr. chairman. $80 billion of energy has been exported from iran, bought by china. that they use to fund their terror operations we saw last weekend. we need to stop that. also, the hamas international financial prevention act poses sanctions against hamas, the palestinian islamic jihad and other terrorist organizations.

more importantly, my crime act imposes sanctions on anyone involved in the supply, sale, or transfer of iran's missiles and drones. think about this, mr. chairman. iran makes the drones and the missiles that are bought by russia to kill ukrainians. they're manufactured in iran to kill israelis. they're given to their proxies and they're given to russia. again, it's all tied together. that act alone will stop the export of these iranian drones and rockets and missiles we saw last saturday night in israel and will stop it from happening in ukraine as well and codify export control restrictions to limit iran's ability to access u.s. technology to manufacture these missiles and drones. it's hard for me to even say that, that we're exporting technology from this country

iran uses to make this stuff. and we do the same thing with china. our adversaries are working together to undermine our western values and our democracy. in closing, i want to quote reagan. reagan republican and i admired him when he said evil is power less if good are unafraid. we cannot be afraid at this moment. we have to do what's right. we have to show strength and peace through strength is what he taught us. evil is on the march. history is calling. and now is the time to act. i yield back. mr. burgess: the gentleman yields back. thank for you your testimony. ms. delauro, you're recognized for your testimony. ms. delauro: thank you very much. let me congratulate you on your chairmanship and i see the chair of the appropriations committee is back and i congratulate

chairman cole as well. we have been on this side of the die as a number of occasions and look forward to us working together. i want to acknowledge ranking member mcgovern and the distinguished members of this committee. i strongly support passage of this supplemental appropriation bills in this national security funding package. this legislation provides the support for our allies that has been desperately needed for months. it supports ukraine against russian aggression, israel in its war against iran and its proxies, like hamas, hezbollah and the houthis. our indo-pacific partners against an adversarial china and provides the urgently needed humanitarian aid for millions of civilians who have been caught in the crossfire across these theaters. and innocent families are in danger. children are starving. and civilian casualties are

mounting in conflict zones all around the world. the humanitarian support in this bill would make sure we are not leaving the forgotten ukrainians, the sudanese, the haitians behind. the speaker has come out in support of aid to ukraine. he said, and i quote, history judges us for what we do. this is a critical time on the world stage. and the speaker continued, and i quote, i would rather send bullets to ukraine than american boys. i applaud speaker johnson for taking a stand. he is right. history will judge us for whether we stand strong or we capitulate in this moment. the moment has met us. so to my colleagues on the other shrill who do not support this aid, we cannot retreat from the

world stage under the guise of putting america first. we put america first by demonstrating the power of american leadership that we have the strength and resolve and the heart to fight for the most vulnerable people, to protect their freedom and reserve their dignity. it is shameful the urgency of this moment has gone unanswered for so long. our allies and our adversaries have seen america all but yield back its central role in defending human rights, freedom, and democracy. if ukraine does not receive the support needed to counter russia's outrageous attack on its sovereign territory, the legacy of this congress will be as spoken by my colleagues here this morning, the appeasement of a dictate, the destruction of an allied nation. and a fractured europe. and yes, my colleague,

congressman mccaul, has said we can be either chamberlain or churchill. and i ask the members of this committee, what is the difference between groans, missiles, rockets raining down on israel and drones, missiles, and rockets raining down on ukraine? we will watch if we are not there for ukraine. gone will be the postwar order that has kept europe free and prosperous. gone will be our credibility in the eyes of our allies and our adversaries and gone will be the america that promised to stand up for freedom, for democracy, for human rights wherever they are threatened or wherever they are under attack. vladimir putin is betting that he can outlast the will and determination of ukraine, the

united states, and other western allies. we must prove him definitively wrong. an american general just last week quoted, and i quote, if you cannot fire back, you are losing. ukraine is dangerously at the point they cannot fire back. we cannot afford to allow them to lose. in the middle east, i wholehearteddedly support funding for israel's defense. israel was attacked by iran and i applaud the role of the united states and the role that it played to provide israel in its defense against iran and its proxies. we're still awaiting israel's response to the attack they experienced over the weekend. we must ensure israel can stand strong in the face of

adversaries like iran that seek its annihilation. question must also ensure that every step possible is taken to protect innocent life in gaza and elsewhere. and i have called for an immediate cease-fire for at least six weeks to facilitate safe delivery of aid to civilians in gaza. we must protect aid workers and open additional crossings to bring in at least 500 trucks a day and ensure that food is never used as a weapon of war. we need this time to help get hostages released. and the united states cannot sit by while people are starving to death. our allies are facing existential threats and our friends and foes around the world are watching, waiting to see how america will respond. putin is watching. xi is watching, the ayatollah

khomeini is watching. what course will america take? we cannot let any nation around the globe hold any doubt that the united states is a committed partner in the security of the free world. and we cannot shift the goal post any further. and right now is the time to pass this bill. and i sit here this morning on this platform with colleagues, democrats and republicans, who are united and understanding that the moment has found us. we need to meet it. and we need to pass this legislation. i yield back. mr. burgess: the chair thanks the gentle lady. unfortunately we are scheduled to vote and i'll yield to the vice chair of the committee and be back to join you on the other

side. >> thank you. i appreciate it. chairman cole? >> no, he went. >> i was not here in the beginning. thank you. ranking member mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank for you your testimony. it seems like all of you are in agreement on how we should proceed. i appreciated the tone of all the testimonies. i think it was contrast to the chairman's opening statement but i do appreciate your tone. and i think we need to move this forward, so let's get on with it and yield back my time. >> thank you. the gentle lady from pennsylvania. >> i want to associate myself with the ranking member's remarks.

in order to get to the hearing room today we all had to run a gauntlet of our colleagues in the press with each of them asking, what is the republicans' plan to pass any national security legislation? does the majority even have the votes to pass the rule out of committee? every week we've seen a new convolume is outed rue goldberg scheme from the leadership to placate the extremists in the house. and it's been clear for a long time now that many members of his party, of the speaker's party are not parts the pating in the legislative process in good faith. it's clear to everyone in this building and beyond that there's nothing the speaker can do to get the votes of the extreme members of the republican party, there's no procedural gimmick or no amendment vote and no bipartisan border security bill or even a partisan immigration package that can win the votes of the chamber's right wing members. time to stop negotiating with legislative terrorists and to work on behalf of these vast and

bipartisan majority of the american people. we've wasted months dancing around the obvious solution here. at any point over the past several months we could have passed the supplemental under the suspension of the rules. they have broad bipartisan support in the house. the biggest losers in this game have been the american people, our national security, and that of democracies across the globe. ms. scanlon: back in the rules committee, no guarantees the republicans can pass this rule, considering a convoluted package no different than the senate supplemental downstairs in the hopper and could be called up with. quit the games, i yield back. >> good friend from south carolina. >> i want to thank the panelists for coming. i agree what most of you said, to be honest with you. mike, i agree, chairman mccaul, i agree with your assessment of

the speaker. we met with speaker johnson yesterday. you know, it's amazing to me when you hear, xi is watching, other leaders, the american people are watching. our only ask was to include a border bill. our only ask was to include the border bill in this rule. mr. norman: not a stand alone the senate will sit on as they have h.r.2. give us something in the senate so-called bipartisan bill, i don't call it bipartisan when you're letting 14,000 illegals in this country. that's not bipartisan. austin summed it up yesterday when i think he asked a number of but, how long are we going to do? how long are we putting america last? the only lynch pin we have is

funding for ukraine. i feel for ukraine and israel but "feel for the american people in having this flood of illegals in this country. that he's talking about on the brink. and chairman mccaul, we saw the vision of the refugees in ukraine, i feel for them. what about the vision of the illegals basically pushing our border patrol agents down? what about the victims? how long are we going to have the pitch of lincoln riley, how long are we going to have kate styley gunned down? how long are we going to put up with a 14-year-old girl in campbell county, virginia, who was brutally raped? how long are we going to stand by and let the impersonator in minneapolis, minnesota, who went in and shot -- he went in as a deliveryman and shot three people in the head and in front of his two children.

we're ignoring the main issue the american people has said, keep our own border secure. now, i've heard the argument well, the senate won't buy it. i'm sorry, if the senate won't buy it, they won't get funding is my opinion. they should not get funding for anything because america, our sovereignty is at stake here and why i'm voting no on this. i cannot sit back and let something that does not have the security of this country, congressman meeks, i cannot do it as we have a invasion at the border that affects everybody. austin i think mentioned it, it's an insult to those who have done it legally. the president is totally responsible for this. it's under his watch over the last 3 1/2 years he's opened the borders up. and the -- not even putting the l.n.g. requirement that we buy gas from america in here. if you really want to support israel and ukraine, stop buying

gas from the opec countries that don't like us. it's not that complicated. all we were -- my reasoning -- it's tough to do this, it really is. but i cannot vote at any level. i get it, we'll probably pass it out of here. but it's something i can't live with and something that the american people are screaming about. and anything moving forward i would hope would have some type of legislation that will shut the border down. and it's not -- hopefully it would be bipartisan to shut it down but it's just not. there's one reason that they're having it in this power. chairman mccaul? mr. mccaul: i agree with everything you said and we live in a border state and we're most impacted by the violence and human trafficking. and the impeachment of mayorkas. we have a president that is not

willing to enforce the law. and we have a senate that will not pass our bills. we passed h.r.2 and we're going to pass it again p. this is more of an enforcement issue than it is legislative. this is where elections have consequences because he has all the the authority that he needs. remain in mexico, i marked that up out of my committee and it wasn't bipartisan. that was one of the few times. but it's a 30-year-old statute. you know, he has the same authorities that president trump had that he used successfully to get the border shut and secure and this president is failing to do that. so i would ask -- and i get it. and i wish the senate would pass h.r.2 but the reality is they won't. but i would not jeopardize the future of democracy and the

future of israel and what's happening in ukraine and in the pacific, the greatest threat since my dad's war, world war ii, threats of europe in the pacific. i would hope you not make that -- they're not mutually exclusive. and so i would hope you consider that. but i totally agree with you on what you're saying. we're stuck in this political situation. but i think at this point in time, he has all the authorities he needs, he just won't enforce it. mr. norman: the only thing he understands is leverage and for some reason the senate has wanted this ukraine funding for whatever reason. i can think of some. there's no need to mention why they want it. or why they're getting 60% of the funds, i would rather the $26 million going to israel, far more. but it isn't that complicated.

defend america. make him do it or he doesn't get the money. and that's why i'll be voting against this. i will close with this, i went to two funerals, fentanyl has killed -- in my hometown. 14-year-old and 40. i mean, how long are we going to keep this up? mr. mccaul: my children have been to many. it's sad. it's killed more than the war in vietnam. i would say 80% of the money for ukraine does go into our defensive industrial base and goes into modernizing and replenishing our stockpile in the united states and it's going to create jobs in the united states. that's what is important, too, we look at a far more dangerous world since this guy took office. mr. norman: i yield back. mr. burgess: the gentle lady

from new mexico is recognized. ms. leger fernandez: i want to thank you for the unity, the concept we are in the moment and we must act decisively and it should be bipartisan. thank you very much, chairman cole and mccaul for that. thank you very much, ranking members. democrats have been asking that we be allowed to vote. that we allow the membership of the united states house of representatives to vote, to support ukraine and our allies and you said it so clearly, chairman mccaul. we all know that china, iran,

russia are not our friends. they are our enemies. and when they attack our friends, we must stand with our allies. and that when we have that vote, i'm going to be certain it will be incredibly bipartisan because there are so many republicans who also want to stand for democracy, who also want to push back the ayatollahs and putin. when they attack ukraine, they also have attacked us in the future and intend to do in the past. chairman mccaul, would you agree that russia has malevolent intent to america and will continue to seek to undermine us and go to a cyberattack and what hear doing to ukraine? mr. mccaul: i grew up in the cold war and my wife tracked russian soviet submarines in the

naval intelligence. and those submarines are back. they are an adversary and the idea they're not connected to china. they're holding hands at the beijing olympics talking about the hanoi riots and how they're invading ukraine. general jack keen to mike pompeo will tell you there's a national security interest. if ukraine will fall and moldova and the baltics are at stake and you're looking at the perils of 1939 all over again and eventually they'll hit an accord with nato article 5 and we'll have to send our men and women over there. they're fighting fossas what they tell me. i want to give them everything they need to at least push the russians back so we don't have to send our men and women over there. it's called deterrent.

if we surrender in ukraine like we did in afghanistan, does that make the united states more powerful or weaker? it makes us weaker. we're not projecting strength and we lose the trust and confidence of our allies. i think that's a big mistake. and it would have a long-term generational impact. i don't want our men and women over there. if we do nothing that is going to happen. ms. leger fernandez: that's why i'm so perplexed there are republicans that oppose supporting ukraine because the republican history has been condemning russia. has that changed? mr. mccaul: what would ronald reagan do? he brought down the soviet union. he was not an isolationist. he believed we were the leader of the free west. he didn't shrink from that responsibility. i can't speak for my other colleague. i just speak what i believe as a

republican that grew up and had the honor to vote for reagan my first election. so you know, i'm with you on the border. i fought, we all did. and we passed h.r.2 and you know what, there will be an election and we can get back to what works. we can't abandon our allies. we abandon our allies at this critical point, then where are we then? ms. leger fernandez: i think at this point, and the sort of understanding of russia was republican and democrat basically until we hit president trump but ranking member, you were going to add to that. mr. meeks: just add a couple things that are important. first talk about the ukrainian people. i led the last code el -- codell

to ukraine before the russian invasion. and we talked to the people. we went and talked to taxi drivers and bus drivers. we went to restaurants and we talked to the people. and what we were saying to them is that this threat of russia attacking was about to happen. we told them that our intelligence said that they would invade. and i will tell you just about -- not just about, but every ukrainian person that i spoke to said all you have to do is give us weapons. you don't have to fight, america.

give us what we need and we will fight. they still had in their minds what took place with crimea. many had said they had been part of the soviet union, they would never wear those green uniforms again. they would fight. they said don't worry about us fighting. we would win. all we're going to do is ask america to give us what wee need to fight with, and we will be back. vladimir putin and the russians. and that's where we are right now. and guess what? president joe biden. many thought, as i'm sure putin did, that we would be divided from our allies. many thought that our allies wouldn't work with us. but it was the skill and diplomacy utilized by joe biden,

which history will record, guess what? nato is now stronger than ever. putin didn't count on it. some of my colleagues here didn't think it would happen. but nato now, who would have thought finland and sweden, countries that you thought would be neutral decided to join nato in this struggle. joe biden helped put that together. joe biden listened. it wasn't america alone because we realized we had to work with all of our allies. we just had the prime minister of japan speak to congress. guess what joe biden has done in the indo-pacific? japan and south carolina for a lodge time were just not talking to one another. there was a historic meeting between japan and south korea. put together by joe biden. bringing the indo-pacific together, working and creating

the quad. in india, australia, look at what we're doing. bringing our allies together is not america out there by itself. it's america and our allies. the skill that joe biden has of diplomacy, bringing us together, working together to defeat, yes, as my colleague said, we must defeat and beat russia. we must make sure that china -- we must make sure we hold north korea at bay. those are the things we need to do. and what joe biden is doing is putting together those coalitions. how do you combat china? having a unified indo-pacific and that's what's taking place there. how do you come back with putin? have a unified europe. how do you combat iran?

being unified. that's the skill that joe biden has made. that's the skill and the people joe biden put back to make sure we're on a road to work together and now we need to give ukrainians what they need so they can defeat vladimir putin. ms. leger fernandez: mr. chairman, i still get to call you mr. chairman. mr. mccaul: i don't want this to be a campaign ad for joe biden. this is very serious. and i'll say this very objectively as i see it, as a fairly rational republican, i think. and that is -- my friend, i agree with and a lot of what he said has happened but i have pleaded with this white house on ukraine to put the weapons in they need to win for two years. and it's been a slow walk.

first javelins and stingers and f-16th and attack 'ems. the very long range artillery that could take out the bridge between russia and crimea. i'm not a general but doesn't take a genius to know to cut the supply line. that's written in this bill, by the way. the colin powell cochran, either get all in or get the hell out. you don't do it halfway. and i've had a criticism of that and the way we got out of afghanistan, the way it was done sent weakness around the world to our adversaries and emboldened them and putin for the first time thought this is my time. this is my time. it's weak.

this president looks weak to me. that's when we see the russian federation literally within months coming down to invade ukraine, the alliance with xi and the ayatollah reared his ugly head. you have to ask the question, i'm not trying to be partisan here, but why is this all happening? why is the world on fire? what caused this? i go back to the old doctrine of chamberlain and churchill. chamberlain, hitler says not worth it. deterrence is key. if we don't provide deterrence, which it still does, we'll invite more war. that's what weakness says. you project strength you get peace. mr. meeks: bringing people together. had we not working with and

talking into consideration what our allies were saying. some of our alleys were going there. but the biden -- i'm telling you this is going to happen. stick together, we can win this thing. biden deserves credit and history will give him the credit he deserves for bringing our allies together. ms. leger fernandez: i was trying to get to the fact we

have you nammity of vision among the four of you we need to get this done. we do not agree how we got to this situation, right? because i look at things and i have the foreign policy that says history will judge the trump presidency more of its destructive effects and we look at what the history of trump and it was destroying our alliances and cozying up to putin. what is the moment we are facing now? and the moment we are facing now is one where america is calling on us to act and be able to vote and depending on where you stand, if you think your constituents don't want you spending more money on you contain or on humanitarian efforts they'll vote that way but allow us to vote but that's

where we are at. and the appropriators want to speak. and mr. chair and ranking member. mr. cole: i agree with my friend texas. my friend from new mexico said we just want to vote. that's what we want from the united states senate on h.r. 2. that's all we want on tiktok legislation that we have agreed with pretty much over here and hasn't come to a vote. that's what we agreed on a tax bill that came out of ways and means. i understand the frustration of my friend that say all we want to do is get a vote on something that we think is important.

we are rising above the united states senate and not trying to hold this hostage. we don't think it is appropriate. the united states has held things on the southern border and child trafficking happening, crime coming in. and and quite frankly, again, i am pleased the president is doing this in terms of ukraine. i respect that. i will tell you the obama-biden administration did zero went putin took crima in 2014. they never sent aid. ukraine was donald trump. and we knew for months before this invasion happened that it was coming. we knew for months. did we send anything.

did we deter them? no, we did. ukraine was a pretty bad signal, if i was sitting in moscow and saw the united states lick which date a 20-year commitment and turn people back over to the very people that hosted osama bin laden. but when historians look at this, they won't start looking at this but going back to 2014 and a very new answered picture. to be fair, it's water under the bridge. i love history, but i know the moment is now on this. we do agree because we see it. and i'll leave it to historians to pin plame. and with with all due respect to people on my side of the aisle and but i can agree on as opposed to things we can

disagree i'm going to act. i'm not going to say where we agree, not do something with you because over here we disagree and -- i'm not going to do it. i don't think it works. it leads to gridlock. there is a lot of context here and fair as my friend from texas talked about some of that, too. and to understand where some of the frustration is with people i don't agree with on this issue but why they are upset the things they think are important can't be voted on in the united states senate. we are asking for a vote and it's like here. we aren't asking for a predetermined outcome. going to let every single member do what they want to do. if you are against aid for ukraine, you will have the

ability. if you are against ukrainian aid, the speaker is not trying to jam you but give every member a choice to pick what they think is important. that is a good thing and i think i wish we saw that more in the united states senate, because this speaker is actually asking trying to provide this house with the ability to work its will. and i think that's what we have the opportunity to do. thank goodness we all agree on this particular item. on this item, i couldn't be prouder of my friend the ranking member on appropriations and be prouder of my friend the ranking member on foreign affairs and i am happy to act with the president of the united states with whom i disagree but i don't on this one and not the areas that i disagree with him on stop me from supporting anymore on a measure where i do agree and i had the privilege of working

with many times who are great legislators. so happy to be here and support it. i support it. ms. leger fernandez: the immigration debate is something we began last night and was killed by members of the republican members of this committee. to not move forward. has not moved forward and bipartisan that some killed in the senate. ranking member delauro. ms. delauro: we continue to sit here and deal with revisionist history. lest we forget it was the trump administration that violated the act illegally withholding security assistance from ukraine. let's not forget that when we think about what emboldened putin or the words of the former president which everyone has

invoked here today in some way or another that putin is his dearest friend. he knows him, knows him well. and don't you think putin is waiting very, very carefully to see another trump administration. they are joined at the hip. let's not sugar coat what is going on here in terps of trying to indict the biden administration. i want to walk away from this whole debate about administrations because it is not the moment at hand. one sentence about border security. i sat in the white house, not in a classified meeting, where republican colleagues said that we won't have ukraine without bipartisan border security. and then you know what? we accomplished bipartisan border security.

it was -- you can shake your head all you want, but democrats and republicans voted for border security. and it was donald trump who said don't give biden a win. think that. this moment is now. the united states senate, you can have all the views you want with a united states senate but hold them to this debate. it is now. about house of representatives. we have the opportunity to do what we do here and that is to govern. and what are we doing in governing to be a world lead her and for months and months we are diddling around where people are dying in ukraine. don't talk about what weapons we are giving them. we are not giving them what they need now. and we should have picked up that senate bill, brought it to the floor and voted on it immediately and we would be out

of here today and doing it. let's not rewrite what is happening. the moment is ours. and if the house of representatives abdicates, yes the history will write the story and it is on us when we had that moment we said no. i, for one, will not say no. i will provide ukraine with the weapons it needs to go forward and provide israel what it needs to defend against iran and i'm in support of being able to deliver humanitarian assistance at a volume that will meet that need because we are standing by and standing by and watching ukrainians and palestinians starve to death, haitians, et cetera. if that's the way we want to be remembered in history, that's not the way i want to be remembered. let's vote on what we need to

be, casting our vote and passing the national security package. ms. leger fernandez: casting a vote against starvation and casting a vote for democracy when we are able to look at this. and i our friend quoting a democratic president. democracy is never a final achievement. it is a call to an untiring -- john f. kennedy. and we must continue that untiring effort for values that honor and values that honor democracy. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. mr. burgess: the gentlewoman yields back.

mr. meeks: three of the bills we were able to negotiate humanitarian aid in them and made the bill better and earned my support in that regard. but i was concerned about sanctions where there are no waivers. mr. massie: of those concerns have been taken care of? mr. meeks: they have in four of the bills, as i mentioned during my opening statement. >> mr. meeks is offering an amendment on that issue that i

support. mr. massie: roughly 100 billion for military assistance. could this be used to purchase cluster munitions, ranking member meeks? mr. meeks: i'm not sure. i'm i am concerned about cluster munitions and their accuracy and npt individuals being injured and trying to make sure for humanitarian purpose we don't hurt innocent boys and girls. never designated, people come by and they are devastated as a result of it. i want to make sure that we are abiding by some of the powers, war powers in types of the weapons that are utilized. and weapons that are ordinarily

utilized. mr. massie: would you support an amendment to prohibit the money going to cluster munitions? mr. meeks: i would look at that. mr. massie: chairman mccaul, could the money here in the bills covered by this rule be used for cluster munitions? mr. mccaul: that money has been appropriated in the regular appropriations process and mr. cole may be able to speak to that on the use of cluster munitions. and i understand your concerns with those munitions. the russians are using them against ukrainians in ukraine. ukrainians want to use them in their own country. they are highly effective. with respect to your question on the funding. i think that was in the original

package. >> if i may, i wasn't going to ask you any questions but defer all the time you want. mr. cole: i shouldn't pass up on an over like that but since chairman mccaul, the authority is in there on the s. proposes portion. and i agree with chairman mccaul, these have been deployed by the russians first. ukrainians have asked for the ability to do this within their own country and something they would prefer not to do but they felt that way and i know the president when we dealt with this issue earlier and had a discussion about this on this committee didn't want to do it either but put in the position where he felt like he had to. again, i think this is where the moral dilemma is created by our adversaries and not created by

the ukrainians and not what they want to do. when an enemy uses a weapon and people defending themselves ask for the ability to do the same within their own country, very difficult for me. i know people have a different opinion on this committee. but i wanted to be honest with you. the authority is in the bill. mr. massie: would you support an amendment to prohibit transfer of cluster munitions with the money that is provided in these bills? [indiscernible] mr. massie: the authority to

purchase is enabled by the bills in this rule. my question -- would you support an amendment to remove that authority to purchase cluster munitions? ms. delauro: the discussion has been -- thank you very much. the authority is there and the agreement on how to try move forward on this and account on the diverse opinions that agree and disagree on this issue. so i would just stand where the bill currently is on this issue. mr. massie: no, you would not support removing the authority for cluster munitions. ms. delauro: i will support the bill.

mr. massie: we auction treasury and issue new debt to cover new expenditures that we haven't paid for and when old debt expires and the concern is that when sovereign countries and

look at you are burring that treasury and consummate this act those countries will have less appetite for what was the most secure investment in the world which is the u.s. treasury and have less appetite for purchasing it if they are not a close ally and their treasury gets repoed. do you have a concern that this may affect the u.s. treasury's ability? mr. mccaul: used this authority in the past and the premises is if you cause harm or injury you essentially waived your sovereign immunity if you will and assets that are frozen and

sanctions as a result can pay for the harm and injury that has been done by a country that is violating international law. in this case, i believe russia is. i would be happy -- but i would say overall, this is a very popular provision in this bill, what it says let russia pay for its own war crimes not the american taxpayers. these are seized russian assets under international law legally and by law we have done this before twice where it's a country causes that harm or injuriy to another country and the assets are seized they can be used for reparation. i think once we get into reconstruction that would be a wise use as well.

i don't think most americans don't want us using taxpayer dollars. they would prefer to be from the russian oligarchs. mr. massie: we could cost the american taxpayers more because the cost of financing debt could go up we use the national security plan to seize those assets and used for victims of

the iraqi invasion in kuwait. we were involved in military action with iraq. so this is the first time the united states has seized and repurpose frozen sanctioned assets despite the absence of any direct military engagement. mr. mccaul: i did disbree. the seizure of iraqi assets to the transfer, the u.s. is not at war. and i believe the treasury is very strong in the united states. dire warning. mr. massie: it was united nations and there was some i think at least some comfort from the other countries that we were

acting with other countries and acting arbitrarily through seizing one country's assets. and we are not doing it with a group of other countries or united nations' security council. mr. mccaul: this is also supported by president trump's economic adviser and newt gingrich. i trust trump economic adviser. trying to get in the game. mr. massie: those are people i respect and the people who buy our treasuries may not respect newt gingrich as much. mr. mccaul: former economic adviser to the president. president trump he is in strong support of this. strong support.

bipartisan. you know, i think the treasury markets are going to be fine in the united states. who do you want to pay for it? mr. massie: i still have that concern and may be bipartisan support here but sends a signal to the rest of the countries in the world that we may just take the treasury if you buy them from us, we may just take them back. mr. mccaul: this is not -- they are all involved in this. i guess you go back having sanctions of these assets. >> one other concern that people expressed is we tie the hands of future presidents that another president can't undo this. would that be -- is that

something democrats wanted in here so trump could normalize -- mr. mccaul: i'm not concerned what president trump would do but what president biden. just like with nordstream 2 and sanctioned that pipeline of energy going from russia into europe. guess what, president biden waived that sanction that congress imposed a mandatory sanction. and guess what? what came out of that, europe became dependent on russian energy. i never thought he would do it, but he did. and talk about the timetable of history, that was the first sign of weakness and afghanistan came after that. this was designed not from president trump. in fact, president trump is not bound by this. if he doesn't want to be. i think it is good policy and

really the history of this president, president biden waiving congressional sanctions and we didn't want him to disrespect the congress on this one. mr. massie: does it bind future presidents? mr. mccaul: that can be entertained. we did this to tie president biden's hands so he would have to do this because of the lack of trust in nordstream 2. mr. massie: going on prior versions of the bill so maybe i'm incorrect but it does remove the president's ability to enter sanctions regime. and my concern here is that could limit the president's negotiating leverage and undermine the ability to come to some kind of peace deal in the russia-ukraine war if he has to

come back to undo the sanctions. mr. mccaul: once the conditions are met and then the obligation is completed. mr. massie: what are those conditions? mr. mccaul: assets be used to pay for not only the efforts that we're undergoing today. mr. massie: this conflict could still be going on and i understand the desire to keep the president from having wiggle room here but keeping him from having wiggle room -- mr. mccaul: i get your point. the intent was to bind the current president, current administration based on the track record of not enforcing

sanctions. iran. iran has sold $80 billion to china that has funded their terror operations. the u.n. sanctions

and appeal to the democrats the fact that trump's hands would be tied in this regard. another concern that i have and there may be some retaliation that the act as written here only intends to seize assets, sovereign assets that are owned by the country not private individuals of the country. but is it possible that u.s. assets and russia could get seized as a retaliation to the repoe act?

united states and will probably follow. a lot of this is in brussels, but there is also provision i think the theory is wanted to get into the former president that he supports this loan program. he wants the idea that we are going to help them so when he gets into office he can negotiate a better agreement. and this would be -- there's a provision that once he accomplishes that that this obligation would be relinquished. mr. massie: speaking of the loan for giveness and loan aspect of the ukraine money, sounds like a good idea. i don't think they will have the ability to pay it back.

why wouldn't he loan the money? they have the capacity to pay it back. why not loan it to them? mr. mccaul: that's more on the appropriations bill. what i think, look -- mr. massie: former chairman and i prefer not to put him on the spot. mr. massie: why would -- sorry, i see that we have a loan and program for ukraine. if that's the great innovation, why don't we do that for the money going to israel and tie what? -- taiwan.

mr. massie: i'll ask ranking member delauro. mr. mccaul: it's in your bill, man. [indiscernible chatter] mr. massie: could we have order? ms. delauro: and funding for ukraine. totally political issue in order to get the people who do not see the value, the u.s.' value in providing aid to ukraine. you all out to think about that. i just say that for me personally but the package paying forward with the way it was without this, but this is what the republican majority wanted to do. so please talk to your colleagues about that. do not talk to the democrats about that.

mr. meeks: all these are republican-led bills. mr. mccaul: the e.u. has the same program with ukraine make this a loan not just a give away. mr. massie: sum up and do you believe it's a gimmick. ms. delauro: i was very, very supportive of -- not supportive of using loans for emergency needs. that hasn't been the way in which we have moved in the past, ok. so it was the house republican, ready for that, the house

republicans for getting the funds. it is a bad press gent. but that was the om way in which to move on funds for ukraine. and talk about trying to get something done, we are here to get something done not put roadblocks on getting aid to ukraine. that is what our job is to do. for giveable loans, bad precedent which i am opposed to did not come out of the senate bill, that was the republicans. so, please talk to your colleagues about it, don't talk to the democrats. mr. massie: sounds like you support the bill. ms. delauro: we need to get aid to ukraine. you know what? it's about someone mentioned up here, what we do in this body and i have negotiated along with

chairman cole appropriations bills. does everybody get what they want? no. do we really compromise on issues for the greater good to try to move forward? yes. that is what is called governing. that's why we all come here. we come here to be able to govern and to get things done in this respect getting aid to ukraine is imperative. mr. massie: let me move on and ask about gaza. how much money is in here for gaza? mr. meeks: $9 billion for humanitarian aid not all of which is going to gaza but humanitarian aid throughout the world. that was in the senate bill.

mr. massie: how much ranking member delauro, how much will go to gaza? ms. delauro: dl isn't a specific number, they never do earmark the funds that go to humanitarian assistance because something can come up in which there needs to be flexibility in order to be able to provide humanitarian aid. as i said in my remarks, you are looking at sudan, looking at haiti, somalia, people have talked about the countries that are in the great test need including gassa. there is not a specific dollar amount. mr. massie: top line. how do we get the top line numbers for the military aid? where do these come from? ranking member delauro. ms. delauro: what came out of the senate.

so this package and that's what this speaker has talked about. and this is what the agreement was. and it was back and forth in which they came forward in what essentially was the senate package. mr. massie: top-line numbers are what the senate number are. ms. delauro: well, first came forward what the president has proposed earlier on and then there was the deliberation about it in the senate. the senate came forward and the numbers that are being proposed here are essentially the numbers that have been asked for earlier ongoing back several months. mr. massie: the speaker told me the reason the numbers are both the same is they came from the

pentagon. ms. delauro: i have to imagine these numbers didn't come out of the air. when you do this, you are looking at what the estimatesr what's needed. and by the way, i think it was mentioned but we can look at what the -- probably coming from the administration and from the pentagon. but there's money in here that deals with the replenishment which there is an estimate of 50 billion. that is where the u.s. industrial base. and we are providing the weapons and then we need to make sure that domestic national security and that money is replenished. that comes from the

administration. >> gentleman yield? mr. burgess: we have a lot to get through today. and ask people to be respectful of each other on the time. mr. massie: maybe i won't yield and use their time. mr. burgess: that's what i would suggest. mr. massie: i was going to yield but better judgment intervened. here's the reason i asked the question, the numbers come from the pentagon they are the experts but i'm concerned that any amendment that is offered in here that would reduce the money in any account is somewhat doomed to fail because this has been preconferenced with the pentagon. we talked about preconference they agreed with the senate and agreed with us and as soon as you pass it in the house. but the problem i have i think

it has been preconferenced with the pentagon and we just accept their numbers and then do everything we can in our power, the leadership does, to make sure that we don't change a single penny. if somebody got an amendment made in order here in this rules committee to reduce some amount of money, it would go down in flames because everybody just trusts the pentagon. when we trusted the pentagon, we get $400 hammers and $2,000 toilet seats but may be the price these days. but we should provide more pushback and not take for granted the numbers that the pentagon sends us and that's what concerns me about the numbers here. the last topic of legislation in this bill that i want to talk about, mr. chairman is the tick tock ban. this was not you will nan

mousily. and been described as a sweetner in the bill, doesn't sweeten the package for me at all. it's kind of sour, if you ask me. and my concern is why does the bill allow the president to ban not just apps, but web sites and there are three conditions under which the president can ban an app or a website, whether 10% opened by a foreign adversary or country or it isdom sealed in another foreign country or that it controlled by a foreign adversary country. there is an article out about me saying i'm a friend of putin because i have not voted for ukraine. they would declare me as a

friend of putin and i am concerned that is a large loophole in the tiktok bill that shouldn't in there because we shouldn't give the president broad authority to declare foreign adversaries countries. chairman mccaul, do you have any concern about giving the president that much authority? mr. mccaul: it applies to successor corporations that would purchase bightdance and controlled by the p.r.c. with the control the narrative that's manipulated. to understand this concept, tiktok bytedance perpetrate a

narrative that i believe persuades the thought through thought control in the united states by the p.r.c. you type in israel-palestinian, you get a pro palestinian version in tiktok. that's china's narrative, not the united states. our concern is what they can do with your phone. they can get your key strokes and manipulate your messaging. they know all your web sites, everything you are doing, all your personal data on your phone is vulnerable to the p.r.c. you as a libertarian, if you want to protect privacy, i want to protect privacy from the p.r.c. what i like about the bill, it requires bytedance to divest

itself in the united states and means another company, hopefully an american company would buy it and just wouldn't be under the control of the p.r.c. and p.r.c. narrative. mr. massie: isn't it true they divested their data storage to an american company in the united states? mr. mccaul: but not their algo rhythms. mr. massie: if the president, not congress, could be more comfortable with the bill to say congress may come back and decide there is the successor company that is the same thing that is spying on americans and sending it to foreign countries, but this bill i'm afraid is so broad that if you have the wrong

president or wrong president's cabinet that they could use this bill to declare an app or website that is controlled by a foreign adversary notdom sealed in but controlled by. that is the concern i have because we have seen these programs abused by the executive branch where we saw a bill that passed congress in 2018 that has been's bussed. at the center of the nerve center or the sensorship of americans on social media and i am afraid we are creating another authority for the executive branch where we could have withheld discretion to keep the president, whoever that may be may abuse that authority. mr. mccaul: i respect that. if we see that occurring, this

is successor corporations in the p.r.c. conducting the same type of behavior. let me just remind the committee that congress banned tiktok amongst ourselves. we banned tiktok within the congress and federal government. if we do it with members of congress because every national security expert and intelligence, military like a chinese spy balloon in your phone. if you are worried about privacy, you should be extremely worried about that. and if we don't think congress should be using using tiktok, why do we let american people use it? mr. massie: i'm not one of them. my concern was shared by somebody, a lobbyist who has web

sites for online shopping or online reviews or travel reviews and got a carveout in this tiktok banned bill because they have the same concerns that i have that it could be broadly applied. gave me some concerns if they got that carveout in there. do you know why they have that carveout? does anybody know? mr. mccaul: requires the divestiture. i would be happy to work with you on this. the intent behind the law is for bytedance to divest its company so it's owned by either an american company or an gule eye to provide mind control, thought control on our children in the

united states and not only that, tracking your key strokes and getting into what you are looking at on your web sites. you have more data -- this is you. this phone has everything about you and it should be protected and very private. and the last country i want looking at my phone and sanctioned by the p.r.c. is china. mr. massie: he is going to lose on friday and baby passed on saturday. is it precedent after they get a bill passed primary sponsor of the bill actually has two titles in this rule. two titles -- there are two bills of his that he authored in the fourth title that's covered by this rule and he's not going

to be here on saturday. mr. mccaul: my understanding and i can't for the vote on saturday. mr. massie: this is his going away gift. i would think he would stay to get his going-away present. mr. mccaul: i understand that he will be here on saturday. mr. massie: i have one question for the chairman if you indulge me. i have been on this committee -- when i got on this committee congressmen and i tried to never surprise anybody. i am disappointed a few people but never surprised them and i told the chairman what i'm going to do in this situation, there is speculation in the media and i don't know where it came from that this rule will change the threshold for the motion to

vacate, is the chairman of that included in this rule? mr. burgess: i have not seen the rule written down. i will leave that for right now and chance to visit it. mr. massie: you're not aware of any effort to do that. mr. burgess: you have seen things in the press. but i don't have any direct knowledge of that. mr. massie: i yield back. mr. burgess: the chair leads to the the gentlemanfrom colorado. we have a history up here of being generous with our time, but time mars on. bearing in mind, the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: there are nine republican members of the rules committee that admonish meant is probably best. our colleagues on this side of the aisle have been very veer

bows. i used no time. mrs. fischbach used no time. mr. neguse: first and foremost i would associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member she gave an impassioned defense of the past 65 days. from my stand poip i think it is shameful 6 # days since the senate passed the to get to this point. bills with the exception of the side car the senate bill while our allies across the globe have been waiting for the congress to act, waiting for house republicans to act.

i'm disappointed it has taken this long but i'm grateful we will have the opportunity to get this done in the next 48 hours. i do have some questions about the side car and in particular the bill that mr. massie, he covered a number of bills in particular one of the bills that he asked chairman mccaul about it. ranking member meeks, how many bills are in this side car bill? mr. meeks: how many bills? there are no democratic bills. mr. neguse: you got my second question. my understanding is there are 15 bills. mr. meeks: 15. mr. neguse: 15 bills pack acknowledged into this side car agreement. none of them are democratic bills. chairman mccaul, i have great

respect for you and enjoyed working with you but i have to say i'm very disappointed that there isn't a single democratic bill that the republican leadership wouldn't identify to put in this larger package because i'm aware of many bills that passed your committee on a bipartisan basis that would merit. mr. mccaul: every one of these bills are bipartisan. and that was our litmus test. we weren't going to put a bill that was just a republican bill. we took bills that are bipartisan bills and for good reason. mr. neguse: there are many bills in the package that i'm supportive. each one of them are a republican-led bill. i would encourage you in the future, i know we have a number of hot spots around the world.

the committee is engaged in addressing those challenges and i would just encourage the ky because i know you and the ranking member have the productive and robust partnership and i think it's important to include bills from the minority. mr. mccaul: every time we have a markup, which passed democrat-sponsored bills and all sitting over there in the senate. i wish they would pass those democratic bills passed out of our committee. mr. neguse: repo act, my question, chairman mccaul, trying to understand your argument and the exchange you had with my colleague from kentucky. if your position that you have structured that bill to limit president biden because you believe he won't enforce the

provisions of this bill? is that your argument? mr. mccaul: because he has waived sarchghtses, nordstream 2 and others and it is important to protect our children from the p.r.c., we didn't wanted it enforced. it could pass. he could choose not to enforce it. mr. neguse: if the administration put out on an administration policy against the bill? the part of my frustration is that i don't think it's a consistent argument to suggest that this president, president biden, who has forcefully, forcefully made the case against russian aggression in ukraine

your fierce are about his abilities or his capabilities to hold the line and not the former president, which of course was the nature of my colleague's criticism from kentucky. mr. mccaul: we had a similar bill in the committee, they were not very keen about this bill in the beginning. so, i guess it's kind of a trust thing that enforced and don't a waiver like he has done on nordstream 2 and iran. and if i could, in response to mr. massey's not here, the financial markets understand the target nature of this action to address russia's egregious behavior, jerome paul testified it will not undermine the dollar and u.s. treasury is of the same

view. mr. burgess: ask unanimous consent to put it into the record? >> yes. >> it's a trust issue. more trust to former president trump than president biden. mr. mccaul: that was an issue raised by mr. massie about tying his hands and that sort of thing. mr. neguse: i'm talking about the repo act and how an argument could be made that that bill was constructed in a way to somehow limit president biden's hand because you don't trust him to implement this policy than former president trump-p. mr. mccaul: it's not to be insulting to the president. we want this done. he does have a track record of

waiving sanctions and nordstream is the most egregious one that we didn't think a president would do that. >> i'm explaining my skepticism. the bhows has not issued a statement against the repoe act. and they won't faithfully execute the laws we pad. clearly rption the former president's ac lights and will tie president trump's hands if he is elected president. clearly all of his allies believe that you are doing this to tie his happened not. mr. mccaul: i appreciate your argument. why are you concerned about

their not being a waiver if you believe the president won't waive it? mr. neguse: i'm not concerned. mr. mccaul: why care if there is a waiver. mr. neguse: my concern is that you made the reasoning for that your belief that president biden when clearly that is not the case. mr. mccaul: is there some concern there? yes. mr. neguse: let me read you a tweet from former president trump's son. these are not my word. why are g.o.p. leadership losers like mccaul pushing your bill that would do my father's ability to end the war between russia and ukraine? that's his tweet. my point is that president biden has been clear about holding

russia i take from that is it is mistrust of president biden and that's not the case or anyone externally is reading the situation. representative meeks? mr. meeks: i agree with you. i have more concerns about president trump, you know. especially this comes to russia, because if you go by history, if i recall correctly, it was president trump that had the prime minister of russia in the white house showing him classified material. it was president trump who just recently said to russia, do what the hell you want to our ally. so clearly, the concern would be on what president trump would do with reference to his

relationship with russia. it is president trump who said he trusts the information, the intelligence of russia over the intelligence of the united states of america. who are you supposed to trust? that's not president biden. those are the words of the former president of the united states. and you're going to trust him with russia? >> i certainly agree. i support the repo act and glad it's been included in that particular side car. and i just think it's important that we have honest, straightforward debate about the bills that we're considering and the reasons undermining them. i respect you, mr. chairman. mr. mccaul: in the commerce committee, 40-2.

mr. meetings a: very bipartisan bill. very much so. mr. mccaul: i'm not trying to tie anyone's hands. it's an important issue to protect our children from communist china. mr. meetings a: so do i. i yield back. mr. burgess: the chairman from texas vehicle. >> i thank the chairman and gentleman from texas. it's good to see you, mr. cole, a week removed. a couple of questions generally to make sure just for the record. i don't want to belabor this but want clarity because there's a lot that's been flying around. we are all aware, disagreements aside, of the porous nature of our southern border. mr. roy: i'm not going to dwell on it. we've covered it. but obviously as i've stipulated and my friend from texas, chairman mccaul would agree, i mean, we've had, you know, a

godly number of people flooding across the border and dealing with all the issues involving that, tragedies we've recounted numerous times here, in particular the data that was released recently we're at 24,300 chinese nationals that have come across the southern border that we know of, not counting got-aways which is a number that exceeds all of 2023 fiscal year. in six months we've exceeded all of fy-2023 and compares to a number of 381 in fy-21 which was president trump's policies predominantly driving the realities at the border. i assume the chairman would agree that poses a not insignificant national security threat to the united states of america that we've got those kinds of numbers from what i'm understanding to be 85% single adults of that number, so we're not talking about a lot of children and so forth, of that number of 24,300, does the

chairman agree with that? mr. cole: let me say when we were in the white house the beginning of the discussions, there were going to be four threats, threat from iran, the threat from putin, the threat from china, and then the threat from our southern border. that's the backdoor. mr. mccaul: if we don't have the backdoor shut and the threats come in and you know as i do, chairman of homeland security, when you're talking about 350 on the terror watch list, and how many do we not know about? when the world is on fire and hamas is out there, and afghanistan is turning into a terror ground again, they released all these prisoners from the bog recall -- bagram basis that some are al qaeda and

isis. i'm afraid something will. and it's a threat to our national security. mr. roy: there's a whole bunch of stuff and in general those numbers, the extent to which we have the fentanyl seizures running at about 1,000 pounds a month. the numbers last month alone were 190,000 at the southern border, close to 250,000 when you factor in northern border and parole and the number apprehended and not counting the got-aways and then you have the nope suspected terrorists that were already about half of what we had last year which was a real high at 169 is the data i have and that might be a variable. but specifically the policies of parole, for example, we have a known homicide suspect entering the cbp-1 app and in july of 2023 was released in the united states and committed a murder and was arrested in middletown, new york. and without going through all of that, all that is front and

center, a lot of it wrapped into the political drama around hr-2 and whether you do it or don't do it and who has it, all that. the simple fact of the matter is this year, whoever's fault it is, whether it's president biden's or whether it's maga extremist republicans to use the vernacular to republicans on the other shrill, whoever's fault it might be, it remains true today that we've not passed and got the president signed into law anything that would meaningfully change or alter what's happening at the border in any significant way, is that a true characterization? mr. mccaul: we passed h.r.2 out of the house. mr. roy: not signed into law. we passed out of the house but back and forth whose fault it is, but we've not signed into law anything to do with the border. mr. mccaul: can i make a point? i've been doing this for a long time. this is an enforcement issue.

it's not so much as a legislative issue. we can throw more money at this thing but the problem is this, we had policies in the prior administration that worked. remain in mexico has been in the books for 30 years and we finally had a president that would enforce it. a lot of this we can enact but if he's not going to enforce it, and remain in mexico, i marked that up out of my committee as in h.r.2, he chooses -- he would rather us give him cover with some bipartisan watered down bill than something -- he could go back to what the trump administration did with existing authorities and secure that border. he's the one that made the choice not to do it. he reversed the policies. when we present our case to the senate in the so-called trial that didn't happen, get this, mayorkas, there's a statute, as you know, aggravated felons must

be detained, shall be detained, you know as an attorney "shall" means mandatory. who are aggravated felons? murderers, rapist, pedophiles, and he sends a memo to his border agent, hey, don't take prior convictions into account when determining whether to detain. so what was the result of that policy? all these dangerous, violent criminals released into our society. mr. roy: i agree with the chairman and move to a conclusion on this, which is -- i partially agree with the chairman. i recognize his point. i agree with the general point about the blame there. where my position is is that there's an article 1 responsibility to force the administration that doesn't follow the law to follow the law. and importantly, to recognize even under a president who does follow the law, whether obama or trump or anybody before, jay johnson recognized problems and we have problems with the trump administration and with flores and judicial opinions with the

cross section of the law that's hard to enforce, all those things that we need to address and we need to address those issues in order to secure the border and congress does need to act. my question is, and we know the answer and we have disagreements on the merits of weighing what we should do on these things. but to be clear, we had a rule last night that was focused on an h.r.2 play and some of us disagreed with that play because we thought it was frankly eviction, it was a sideshow that wasn't going to result in anything. but this rule will not include anything that touches the border in any meaningful way, correct? mr. mccaul: a separate vote with the border with a separate rule. mr. roy: that rule we took up last night and been effectively suspended but we've not -- nothing in this bill, this rule, the set of bills we're talking about here would address the border, correct? mr. mccaul: you're getting above my pay grade a little bit but let me just say from a pragmatic

standpoint, they have not entertained h.r.2 and they will not entertain it now. and the situation is very dire in the spots we're trying to address and you know, i wish it was -- i agree with you. we're both from texas and i wish it were a perfect world. mr. roy: i hear the chairman. i do not mean to put him on the spot about texas and what he's doing and weighing all this. for the purposes of those reaching a calculation is different from some of our colleagues, it's important for the world to know we're going to proceed with a rule here that is going to advance foreign aid to the tune of $95 billion, roughly, of various forms and fashion, predominantly 2/3 of which going to ukraine and another block going to israel and another block going to taiwan and submarines and other stuff that are overall defense needs, and that none of that, none of it, is going to address the southern border. i agree with the gentleman, money wouldn't help the southern

border, you have to have changes to force the administration to follow the law. and parole. the second question is that i believe i'm correct that of the dollars that are going -- the loan -- i'm sorry, the loan program only really applies to the -- i'm going to roughly round the $8 billion-ish of the nonlethal account the ukrainian government can use for other purposes. the loan can only apply to that subset of the money, and so then of that, i'm under the understanding the president can forgive 50% of that and the other 50% could be forgiven in the future but only with congressional action, is that a correct characterization? just the facts. mr. cole, if you have the answer to that, chairman cole. mr. cole: as i understand it, yes. though there is still a

congressional component. we could approve of the loan forgiveness. mr. roy: the president could decide to forgive but we could disapprove of that forgiveness. got it. then in the future congress would have to be consulted before forgiving the second half. mr. cole: also true. mr. roy: just so i know. the democratic ranking member acknowledged there is humanitarian aid that some of which could go to gaza and that that's -- we're acknowledging some amount of the $9 billion, wouldn't be the full amount? mr. cole: correct. mr. roy: there's $5.6 billion that could ultimately get to gaza. [inaudible] mr. roy: of the $9 billion, $4 billion is refugee specific, do i have that wrong? i thought it was -- i thought there was a characterization --

is that not accurate? 5.x is for humanitarian and four-ish is specific to referees. ms. delauro: it's not divided. mr. roy: for the few members watching all this and the few americans, i want them to know the facts. obviously i have concerns about that in terms of dollars that can flow and end up in the hands of hamas. mr. cole: this is a important point, we prohibit all funding to unrwa. 12 employees were part of the invasion and their headquarters were underneath -- hamas' headquarters were underneath unrwa in the tunnel so none of this money can go to unrwa. mr. roy: i appreciate that and i

presented legislation to defund unrwa and i wish we had done that before october 7. we had votes in our appropriations bill last september to to do that and applaud the republicans for trying to do that. i would note, though, a lot of these funds are fungible and just knocking down that one account in unrwa doesn't necessarily prohibit these billions of dollars flowing and in fact many watchers of this, including friends of mine in israel "who wants tobe a millionaire?" raised the question in direct communication, this is digital money while funding israel and they want the funds but recognize this money would be used by an administration hellbent on frankly interfering with israel to find a way to get that money -- if it gets to gaza, it gets to hamas. mr. cole: private n.g.o.'s, catholic relief services, world food program, david beasley world food program, now cindy mccain and catholic relief services, they're on the ground

and should be taking over the responsibility of unrwa. mr. roy: my only observation on that is i don't have a lot of confidence on n.g.o.'s now that i've seen what happens on the southern border. moving on for a second time. and i'm going to skip a couple things i wanted to cover. but one general question for you, mr. mccaul, which may not be fair to you versus another member. i want to be careful in the way i ask this for purposes of national security and everything else. how would we character size america's relative -- within publicly available to talk in a nonclassified way, if it's possible and it may not be, relative stockpile of munitions today from where we were, share, in march of 2022 two years ago before we were engaging in support for ukraine -- well, israel, too, but for ukraine and you know, again, within the parameters of what we can

publicly talk about. mr. mccaul: i don't have the exact numbers. what we have put into ukraine are older -- the old weapons, old stockpiles that were sitting around, you know, and what this 80%, again, this funding goes to our own defense industrial base to modernize and update our defense industrial base and produce new weapons that are better. we're giving them old stuff. eastern europe has given the russian equipment they have and they're getting the older things and we want to build the newer and modernized weapons and we fit a lot of money into -- this map shows where all of this is going to go to, and i have to say, mr. roy, my friend from texas, that we have a defense

industrial base problem. mr. roy: i concur. mr. mccaul: it's a national security problem. that's what i like about the bills, we took 8% of it to fix that, and shore up a industrial base that i believe is broken. mr. roy: chairman cole? mr. cole: enormous percentages is replenishment, well over $24 billion. at the same time, one of the areas i want to be very careful how i say this but let's just take an item like 155 millimeter shells. what we've done so far has more than doubled the capacity of the united states to produce those shells. and what will happen in the supplemental, and this is from defense subcommittee work will

more than double it again. and chairman mccaul is exactly right. my district has air defense artillery in it at fort sill and we trained a lot of the ukrainians using the patriot but they're training on older weapons systems. there's four different varieties of these and they're training on ones and twos and we're buying thirds and fours. there is a real effort to increase the capacity to produce , maintain the stockpiles we need and move the older stuff out which is better than anything they had available. i just wanted to share that. ms. delauro: if the gentleman would yield. on this issue, i've asked that question. this is a d.o.d. estimate, at least $50 billion of the package is for the u.s. to spend the industrial base across 30 states. that's what d.o.d. is

estimating. mr. roy: i thank the gentle lady and some things we can't get in detail in a public setting and i'm aware of that and wanted to bring it out for a number of reasons and everybody is guilty of it there's painting with a broad-brush stroke that people are concerned about where they land on these issues. one can be, as i characterize myself as, fully supportive of wanting to fund israel, fully cognizant of the dangers of not holding the line against putin. but still being adamant of our need to secure our own border, differences of opinion aside about how, but having failed to do so. and simultaneously concerned whether or not we're going to be able to succeed in ukraine and how the money has been previously spent. so even here today in the testimony, we've heard -- in a

positive posturing by the chairman, i think, of saying we're going to try to enforce the administration to provide certain weapons that might help them win it and be more aggressive on that front but meanwhile, my constituents are going wait, we had $113 billion and some of it has been allocated and there's different ways to frame those dollars, that was already put forward and appropriated and they're saying well, ok, how was that spent? so now we're trying to say if ukraine needs more in order to, what, hold the line, and to be clear, i don't have a clear mission out of this administration. i don't know whether we're talking about the 1991 lines, i don't know whether we're talking about every inch of crimea, every inch of done bask -- donbask or we're holding the line east of kyiv to prevent them from coming to kyiv but have a serious discussion or

cease-fire that's already been disputed or gained by russia. i don't have the foggiest clue of what our administration's position and posture is on that with clarity. because we've gotten different views out of the administration on that. there has been, you know, kind of the lean into what mr. zelenskyy wants and say we want 1991, we want every inch of the territory, and then there's been more well, we just want to make sure we can hold the line and not let them advance because we don't want them anywhere near the western side of ukraine and therefore be right on the line with poland and our friends there. i'm not nearly as traveled as the chairman because my committee and jurisdictions don't take me there. one of my earlier trips when i was senator cruz's chief of staff i went on a trip over a week jerusalem, estonia and kyiv. and was very steeped in what they face. and i just think it's really important for the entire world

to understand the dynamic of the dispute at the moment. it's not some monolithic isolationists who don't want to support our role in the world to prevent a putin to stand for democracy but it's a real and reasoned debate about priorities when if you look during reagan's time, when you look at the relative debt to g.d.p. ratio under reagan, we were probably at about a 37%-ish when he did the buildup to g.d.p. now we're 10 buck 20 depending how you count the debt and we're in a real problem. you look at the overall defense spending and we talked here about ramping up the industrial base on ukraine and that might be good thing for our country to get our production level up. but at what cost over there, how many ukrainians have to die in the process which is a very real

concern and the jail's point was in kind of the negative. the ranking member was, hey, how many ukraines have to die before we act? some of us were saying with some reasonable debate, i want to help you, how many ukrainians have to die while this perpetuates without a will to make sure we win it. how many ukrainians are dying right now because we're funding it without a very clear authoritative path to victory to make sure we're getting it done. that's what we're wrestling with, vis-a-vis, this administration and how much money to fund into that and meanwhile our borders wide open with chinese nationals coming across the border and so forth. last point of how we fund war. there's been a lot of discussions in the think tank world which is halfway relevant about ghost budgeting. since basically september 11, we have been funding effectively endless conflicts of various

sources p. people say that in a pejorative sense and there's been important engagements we've been carrying out but we've been doing that with oco and budget line items with supplemental spending like we're doing now. whereas prior to september 11 we were forcing sacrifice among the american people if your blood and/or treasure are going to be sent into battle you have to sacrifice. there is going to be increased taxes and war bonds and you've got to stop buying sugar and stop buying tires. you're going to have something that you're going to have a stake in that as a country and we've not been doing that. we've literally been doing nothing to borrow money 20 fund conflict for the last 25 years. that i believe is a fundamental problem and disconnect here. so the concern that i have here is that plus border equals problem with the rules. last point i'll make and then

i'll yield back for purposes of time is this notion of this kind of being an open process with all due respect to the current chairman and former chairman of appropriations. but in truth the average american understands what we've got to the approval of our democratic colleagues is effectively the senate bill broken into some pieces and put on the floor, yes, with possibly amendments, largely all predetermined and precooked and what we'll be call merved for smashing it back together and put back together to send over to the senate in roughly the structure of the senate bill and why we know and the reporting confirms that senator schumer to some degree, leader jeffries, have all applauded this is the result they want. the reason president biden is saying he's applauding it is it's the result the president wants, this is to achieve the objective of the senate bill

from 65 days ago and therefore that's why some of us have strong reservation and more than strong reservation but objection because this is not putting ukraine on the floor for a week of full unfettered debate like we're having here. this is a good conversation. the panel has laid out i think a whole lot of really important points about what we need to do as a country. because what we've done is decided and decided it in the way we typically do without the full debate i think we should have on the floor with independent bills or if we're going to package it together, last point i'll make is we should honor the commitments you make and with all due respect to the speaker, when the speaker said, for example, on norv 5, 2023, we can do all these things together but when you couple ukraine and the border it makes sense to people or when the speaker says september 5,2023, i explained ukraine funding is transformal to our border

security laws or when the speaker said in 2023 from the very beginning i handed the gavel we needed clarity what we'll do in ukraine and how we have oversight of taxpayer dollars and a transformative change at the border. or the speaker said at the boredder in january, quote, i told the president i've been saying for many months, we must have change at the border, substantive policy change and i could go on but this is where the people i represent fall and i have strong reservations to concerns. the jail wants to talk and i will yield to the gentle lady. ms. delauro: as appoint of clarification because there's been a lot of discussion about the border. but when there was a bipartisan agreement overall and the border piece was a part of that, when afterwards the former president

indicateed his opposition to the bill and then it fell apart and we were no longer going to have any border piece of it, i just think it's important to note, because we keep making reference to the border security, ok. this was division b. border security and combating fentanyl supplemental appropriation to 24. and you know, i don't have time here for the committee to read what was then excised and the republicans walked away from what was in this portion of the bill in terms of border security. in the criminal division, combating human trafficking and smuggling that affects the u.s. border communities, the texas communities that we're talking about.

yes, additional immigration attained. marshal services, federal prison detention, drug enforcement administration, u.s. customs and border protection, u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. federal law enforcement training centers. i'm not reading it all because it's just too much. there was efforts on the unaccompanyied children program, uscis direct hire authority, i.c.e. direct hire authority supplemental definition. training for u.s. border patrol electronic notices to appear. it goes on. again, there was substantial approval in a bipartisan way on

border security measures. and when the former president made his determination and said this is not something we want to provide a win for. i think the american public needs not just to hear border security, but i think the american public has got to understand where the republicans have really walked back on border security by saying no to this. you can just continue to use that phrase and the pejorative way but not talk about what it is that was relinquished and i am someone who believes we have to have border security and get control of the border. mr. roy: i appreciate that and want to give the chairman time to speak and give my time back.

the chairman wanted to engage. mr. cole: quickly to add a couple things. i didn't want to be caught in the border discussion but will add this. it does matter how you arrive at a deal. we've reduced h.r.2 through a normal committee process. people got their fingers on it and they negotiated and fought and came to a product and moved the product not only out of committee but across the floor. with all due respect to our friends in the senate, that's not what happened there. i don't think it was fair to say it was a bipartisan deal. there was a deal between three senators. these are friends of mine. i'm not critical of anybody but the process that was set up would have been better if they'd done -- they would have been better off to take what we did and change it however they want in a normal committee. that's how people come to deals. and the senate has moved away from that. and i regret that. but all that aside, i think my friend made so many good points

about the concerns that all of us had about the conduct. i can't hardly think of anything you said i disagree with. i worry about the defined objective and the open strategy. i will tell you this and i will say this. maybe not in defense but an explanation of the administration. we had a defense subcommittee hearing on appropriations several months ago. may have been months ago and we had a director of operations for the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary or assistant secretary for national security made the point, and it needs to be obvious what russia did was a strategic failure.

and so nobody does anything like this again. and this was the head of the counteroffensive which did not go as well as we would have hoped i think is fair to say, or ukraine would have hoped. that may well impact how you define that. i look at it, and i can say to this point, russia has pushed finland and sweden into nato. i guarantee you that's not something they wanted to do. to this point they've suffered over 300,000 casualties and that's not something they planned on or wanted to do. to this point, they've been forced into measures they thought they never would have had to take. they thought this would be a war that was over with in weeks and not many months now into its third year. but the ukrainians are doing the fighting and dying and we've been pretty indispensable to that effort and so have our

friends in europe who provided enormous amounts. i've never seen them step up like this and there are a dozen countries who have actually committed a larger percentage of their g.d.p. and a larger percentage of their budgets than us. and that's -- they're closer. if you're from poland or the baltic states, you look at this a little bit differently than we do because you don't have the luxury of distance and the relative security of the united states. i do think this is evolving. i really respect the different points of view in the congress on. i'm very careful about not calling people that oppose ukraine isolationists because they are. how can you be an isolationist if that's it. they've got a problem about how this war is being conducted. the nature of our commitment,

the lack of strategy. and i'm not going to tell you i'm 100% satisfied with it because i'm not. but there are a lot more oversight requirements than there ever were in the senate bill. there is a requirement that they produce a strategy. and you know, you've been around here a while, too, as both staff and member, just because we tell them to do something doesn't mean the administration of either side always will do what we tell them to do. but there's more in that. i'll tell you this, this isn't the package the senate wanted. they sent us what they wanted but they're getting back something different. my friend made some points, financially it's broadly the same thing but it has brought in components where people can vote individually how they choose to and you can make it very apparent i'm not for this but i am for this. or you can be against it all.

and you know, but the body will work its will. individual members will get to vote how they want to. if you support israel, you won't have to vote for ukraine. on the other side of the aisle, some of my friends are very skeptical about the israeli aid component and we like to attach conditions to it and do stuff like that. but we're not going to force them to vote for israeli aid because they were for ukrainian aid. that i think is a big difference. it's also going to force the senate toe accept the measures we want. but it's compromise and kind of the best we could do in the time frame that we have. that doesn't take anything away from the legitimacy, my friend from texas' points are about the

process and honestly about some of his concerns because i share some of those very same concerns about the manner in which the administration has conducted the war. i think those are fair things to point out. i would just again say we are in a critical point. kind of look at this in for a penny, in for a pound. i don't want to leave an ally high and dry and frankly i don't want to see what happened in ukraine happen in afghanistan. i don't want to see that kind of situation unfold. i think it's a terrible message for the rest of the world. i think what happened in afghanistan was a terrible message to the rest of the world. i think that's one of the reasons why we're here right now. mr. roy: i'm not trying to cut off the panelists but on my time the panel has gone a while and want to yield to the chairman. i have to make one response to the ranking member and then

yield back. that's on the border issues. the package bill. mr. roy: it was structured in a way to set the constant flow of individuals in the united states. and notwithstanding all the funding mechanisms the jail outlined it was funding that was used predominantly to continue the processing and flow of the massive use of parole and asylum to flood more people into the country which resulted, very demonstrably of individuals being in the country that are dangerous and it resulted in the death of americans, very specifically. i'll conconclude to say i take to heart and appreciate the chairman's comments, mr. cole and the entire panel. i appreciate the dialogue. i am well aware of the

considerations involving what occurs if ukraine falls. i believe we should have handled it differently with the $113 billion we've already spent. i'm sympathetic to additional dollars if in my view was more targeted and more lethal. the commitment that we at least as republicans have made to our constituents to secure the border of the united states first, for that reason, i have to remain opposed. and we will continue to have this conversation. i have great respect. i wanted to clear -- ms. delauro: is there charity out of israel and iran? no clarity there. mr. burgess: the gentle lady from indiana. >> i don't have a lot of questions but have a few and thanks for the indulgence on the time. one of the things that we hear or that i have heard in some --

from some constituents back home is that we are in this bill package funding other countries and wars in other countries and we're not funding our own border. the question that i have, though, is this a funding problem, is this a money problem or is it a policy problem? ms. how muchen: because -- ms. houchin: it's not a bitheir choice for the funding -- binary choice for the funding of israel and ukraine and taiwan in particular. the policy is what's failing at the southern border, and we've tried to pass h.r.2, our own border bill. we have called on the president to act under his executive power which we know he can do because when he first took office, he

undid an executive order that president trump had instituted on day one. so is this a funding problem relative to the border or is this a policy problem? i'll go to chairman turner -- mccaul. i'm so sorry. they get the blonds mixed up, too. mr. mccaul: it's a policy problem. on the border, it's not enforcing existing law. so take remain in mexico, for instance. i marked that up out of my committee. it was part of h.r.2. president day one in office rescinded that policy in which the head of border patrol told me, ortiz, had a direct cause and effect of what's happening on the southern border. money is not going to change that. it's the asylum policy changes

that were made that have caused us problems. and we can pass it again. but it's not even a legislative problem, it's an enforcement problem. he already has the authority to secure the border, just like president trump did. but he chooses not to do it. i think he wants it covered to have a bipartisan bill to say oh, now i'm fixing the border when he's already chosen not to. mayorkas is not enforcing the laws and releasing those felons though the law says shall detain. it's clearly an enforcement issue. we can pass it again but if he doesn't enforce it, it doesn't do any good. the funding issue, throw more money if you don't have a policy change won't do any good. ms. houchin: to your point, remain in mexico, take that single policy point, what would

border patrol say, how much could we cut back on illegal crossing just by reinstating remain in mexico? mr. mccaul: i would say the majority. it does two things, remain in mexico, when you're apprehended, you go to mexico where you remain, you're not released into the united states. you have to remain pending the adjudication of your asylum claim. political asylum claims 85% or not are legit and 15% are. but since they're not in the united states, they're not released into the united states. it's a very simple concept. and when that policy was changed, they knew, it's also a messaging deterrent thing. we're sending the wrong message that hey, if you come, you can stay. remember when mayorkas says, you can come but don't come now, he says. what kind of message does that

send to people who want to come? more importantly was it sent to the cartels? because they're making money off these victims they traffic into the united states and fentanyl and everything else. it's a national security threat and i appreciate the comments and i agree with most of them. i wish -- if the president isn't going to enforce the laws, that's what elections are for. ms. houchin: we can pass all the laws we want but if the president and mayorkas will not enforce the law, there's not much we can do. we've already impeached mayorkas for his failure to follow the law. mr. mccaul: correct. ms. houchin: it was brought up from my friend from texas, mr. roy, the comments the speaker has made relative to having border and ukraine tied together. i would say to chairman mccaul,

what has changed in ukraine and israel and taiwan, what has changed that you can talk about, since the speaker made those statements? has the situation become -- has something changed to make the situation become more dire in those areas? since he said any funding for ukraine would have to be tied to the border? mr. mccaul: all i can tell you -- i can give you a very quick overview if the chairman will allow. the situation is very dire in ukraine. i just talked to our ambassador. kharkiv is about ready to fall with two million people. if you have any human compassion, children being slaughtered and abducted and kidnapped and sent to russia, maternity hospitals bombed. kharkiv is going to fall if this doesn't pass and the power grid is going to go out.

i would give them two weeks to a month before the russians will take over ukraine. ms. houchin: what are the consequences to the united states? mr. mccaul: what were the circumstances when we imploded and surrendered to the taliban. it sent a message of weakness. we'll surrender to putin and it goes beyond ukraine. every military or foreign policy expert, he's going beyond ukraine and moldova who are not protected under article 5 and go into georgia, that's low hanging fruit and then he'll start probing the baltics. poland is extremely nervous. and i don't blame them. given the history, you go to poland and they say this is like 1939. they remember the nazis coming in and the united states was not

engaged. my dad was in that war. and we lost a lot of men and women. you wonder if we had deterrence, like chamberlain was not a deterrent. churchill was. and you have to ask yourself at this moment, who are you? and you know, we could have maybe stopped that war earlier had we provided the earlier deterrence. that's what we're trying to do. if we don't give them what they need to win, then we may very well get dragged into this and that's the last thing i want to see happen to our young men and women. ms. houchin: when america doesn't lead on the world stage with foreign policy, i believe that's what has led us here today. i think we had a lack of leadership, we certainly had

terrible foreign policy and weak leadership in the white house which led us to where we are but i do think the united states has been a beacon of freedom and liberty and democracy and we do have to seriously consider, and i'm glad that we are today all these bills with respect to what that says to the rest of the world. mr. mccaul: i call it the peace through strength bill. it was reagan's quote but churchill's axiom. we proceed strength strength we get peace but we project weakness we get war. i would say after afghanistan, you see the russian federation in ukraine and the threat in taiwan from china getting very aggressive. xi is watching what happens in ukraine. if ukraine falls, chairman xi has that opening and he knows

the resolve is not there by the u.s. congress by this weak president and he's going to invade taiwan. 90% of advanced semi conductors are manufactured in taiwan. think about that. and of course we know what's going on in the middle east. the ayatollah has been empowered by russia who buys their missiles and china buys $80 million in energy which this administration doesn't enforce the sanctions. they're all tied together. i have a great picture. we wrote turner and armed services and house intelligence and foreign affairs wrote a path to victory and we have a picture of the ayatollah and putin and chairman xi together. they're all in this together. ms. houchin: when we're considering this bill in particular, is there funding

included to restock our own ammunition for the united states, to take care of our own, the restocking of supplies. that would be something we're not prepared. mr. mccaul: part of it goes to modernizing our defense industrial base. chairman cole talked about it. most of us have contractors and we need to fix our defensive base. this is a problem with or without this. people need to understand it. it's going in our own production of defense, which is somewhat broken. it's necessary. ms. houchin: i yield back.

mr. burgess: the gentleman from georgia is vehicle. >> i've been here since 10 this morning and the only person i'm going to yield back is you, mr. chair. i'll make a couple statementses. the last three hours we've had a lot of discussion about which u.s. president is responsible for the invasion. let me make something clear, vladimir beautien is responsible to the invasion. when we go to the floor as u.s. congress, it's important for us not to make disparaging remarks about the current and previous president and the person i think will be sworn in the beginning of next year as the next president. vladimir putin is the reason for the invasion of ukraine. vladimir beautien is the reason, not president trump, not president biden. mr. scott: with regard to the repo act. russia has already seized the assets of other companies and corporations and will continue

to whether the repo act is passed or not. if you read the language on the repo act, there's approximate $5 billion the u.s. could attach to. it's a very small portion of what russia actually has and the majority of the money is in belgium and belgium has said they will not enforce the repo act unless there's an agreement of the g-7. so there are certain protections that have been built in to the bill that have not been discussed. with regard to putin's intentions, he intends to control the black sea, if he controls the black sea he has tremendous control over global food supply. i think everybody needs to pay close attention to that. we learned real quick those who didn't know just how valuable the port of odessa in ukraine is important to the global food supply. fortunately a lot of that has been turned back on because of what the ukrainians have been able to do in forcing the

russian naval fleet out of crimea and to the black sea. he's already across the border in moldova. they don't have a military or the ability to protect themselves. and he is already across the border in georgia. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield whatever hours upon hours i had left of time to you. mr. burgess: thank you, the gentleman from georgia. you're very generous. i want to thank our panel. very thoughtful comments you have made. the witnesses are excused. mr. scott: could i enter in the statement on behalf of mrs. wagner, the compensation re-authorization act to com penn state american's harm by the nuclear program, i ask you to consider this amendment. mr. burgess: the witnesses are excused. thank you.

now, as we undertake the transition, i'd like to invite mr. clyde, mr. mills, mr. zeinke, dr. nunn, and mr. norman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] >> i will never yield to you, brother. you talk too much.

ask the witnesses to leave and the arriving witnesses to be seated. mr. burgess: the committee will be in order. welcome all of our witnesses. be mindful of the fact we spent a good number of hours on this and have a good few hours to go, so please summarize your comments and we'll start with mr. clyde. mr. clyde: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to speak to my

amendment 34 and 35, the israel security appropriations act. these two critical amendments will allow israel to receive the necessary small arms that they need. i have been extremely concerned about the department of state's lack of transparency regarding the issue of export licenses for the direct commercial sales of small arms to the israeli national police who are in acute need of them. shortly after hamas' brutal terrorist attack on october 7, 2023, israel contracted with u.s. small arms manufacturers to purchase rifles they desperately need. these small arms contracts were approved by congress in november and are being purposefully delayed by the department of state i believe are political reasons. what normally would be a 41-day process of approval has been languishing for over six months. to date the department of state has not provided a valid reason for delaying these export licenses. the department of state says it is concerned the rifles will be used by settlers against the

palestinians. well, the rifles are going to the national police which is part of the israeli government, not to settlers. so this excuse is entirely unacceptable, in my opinion. there also was a joint letter by the chairman of house foreign affairs, mr. mccaul, who just testified here, and the chairman of appropriations, state and foreign operations, subcommittee chair mr. diaz balart to the department of state asking them to approve these export licenses. it's very concerning the department of state has delayed these. so my amendments are in line with the letter from these two, chairman, and would ensure these licenses are swiftly approved and ensure that israel gets the small arms they need as soon as possible in order to defend itself and continue to defend itself against terrorism. and i urge the rules committee to make these amendments in order so we can show additional support to israel. also, i have an amendment regarding the international

disaster assistance. i'm here today to speak in favor of amendment number 67 to h.r.8034, the israel supplemental security appropriations act. my amendment would strike over $5.5 billion for international disaster assistance. this money is part of the over $9 billion in this legislation for humanitarian assistance and this language is almost identical to what was included in the senate national security supplemental which passed the senate earlier this year. in a senate democrat press release, they explained these funds that are in this bill for disaster assistance are to provide food, water, shelter, medical care and other essential services to civilians in gaza. well, why in the world are we giving billions in an israel support supplemental to gaza, especially when this assistance will end up in the hands and -- it has been reported that

usaid funds have ended up in the hands of hamas. our own oversight committee sent a letter to usaid expressing are concern about us aid money potentially going to hamas. when you provide these type of services to gaza you provide the same aid to hamas terrorists in gaza. when you feed one person, you feed another as well and you allow all the money that would normally -- -- they would normally spend on these types of services to go to weapons production, ammunition production and literally fighting israel. so we must support our greatest ally in the middle east israel and the hamas. my amendment would strip this funding provision and ensure that we are not inadvertently supporting hamas terrorists. in my third -- and my third amendment or my third set of remarks are on the ukraine economic loan forgiveness. my amendments to hr 835, the

ukraine supplemental appropriations act of 2024, would show that this bill provides billions of dollars of economic assistance to the country of ukraine in the form of a loan and additionally provides that the president explicit authority to wave any ukrainian debt that comes from these loans and my first amendment number 71 would strip the president's authority to wave the ukrainian debt. if you borrow money from another person, you should be required to pay it back. especially when the loan is coming from the hard-working american taxpayers. that all of us represent. it makes absolutely no sense for us to turn our back on the american people know and provide the ability to forgive and country's debt instead. the american taxpayer should not be on the hook for economic assistance to foreign citizens when millions of

americans across the country are still struggling to afford basic necessities under president biden's inflationary economy. loan forgiveness that does not benefit the american taxpayer one bit. instead add fuel to the inflationary fire already ravaging the wallets of americans. congress must vote on the authority provided to the president in the bill to wave ukraine's loan. therefore my second amendment would amend the mechanism to the debt waiver to require a joint resolution of approval to be passed by both houses of congress rather than a joint resolution of disapproval before any debt waiver from the president can be implemented -- a common sense solution that ensures congress does not exceed more power to an overly powerful executive branch and it ensures that congress has the final say on any debt waiver not the president so

congress can stay directly accountable to the american people with regard to this funding. thank you again for letting me testify. thank you, mr. clyde. i have mr. nels next on the list. >> thank you. my amendment addresses your concerns about this humanitarian aid. it's pretty simple. i read this bill. it's 25 pages. gaza's name is used 11 times. the bill is about israel. but yet when you take a deep dive into this, and i spent the last two hours listening to this committee talk, and finally meeks just kind of said it n ine --$9 billion going to gaza. if we wanted that to go to gaza, why don't we have a standalone bill for gaza? you're kind of confusing members

of congress and in my humble opinion the american people by coming up with a bill making it sound like we are really here to support israel. while it's not. so my amendment goes into there on page 11, $5.65 billion international disaster assistance to address humanitarian needs. that's going to gaza i can assure you. the migration and refugee assistance. $3.49 billion that's going to gaza. and it was unclear to me when i read this. i had to get lawy to kind of go in there and read between the lines. i said, i think this money's going to gaza. even though it is for israel. and i said to myself when you think about it, i know what happened. i think the squad ro page 11. i think the squad got in there and wrote page 11. because this administration is

-- they don't have this figured out. they are trying to play both sides. they are trying to support israel yet you'd better do something about the pro-palestinians protesting everyday. oh and by the way when you have a primary in michigan and one out of every five voters are saying i'm not committed or i'm not voting for joe, to me this bill is nothing more than election interference. when you want to put $9 billion for gaza. he is playing both sides and he's using the american tax dollars to leverage it. i don't understand how we could support any legislation that is meant to support our greatest ally israel but yet we are going to give $9 billion to gaza. so i would appreciate everyone's support on my amendment that will insert after humanitarian needs the following, with respect to

israel. the money needs to be sent to israel. mr. massey brought it up and asked the question. if you want to send $9 billion to gaza, there should be a standalone bill and not insert that stuff into this bill that supports israel. and that's what it was titled appropriation bills for israel. shame on this for what we've done today. i yield. >> thanks to the gentleman. the general man yields. -- gentleman yields. mr. massey, you are next. >> thank you. i'd start by saying this to to this committee, anybody in here want does is agree with me that israel is our ally? i don't see anybody disagreeing. anyone in here want to say that gaza is our ally? i even see headshaking no. let the record state nobody in

here is saying that gaza is our ally. i'll even wait another moment to see if anybody wants to see us. there's no yes, it makes absolutely no sense as my colleague was just pointing out that we support our non-ally who is at war with our ally in any sense, and no world does that make sense, it doesn't. amendments number 22, number 23, number 24, and number 62. so number 22 under elimination. the underlying text of this bill has already purported not to allow funds to go to unra but in this bill i think it's important that we go further to eliminate unra and make it known that it is specifically as it states in this amendment u.s. policy that unra should be disbanded and directs the president to take action so that policy through a couple of ways, coordinating international efforts to achieve the policy of disbanding unra by

removing all unra facilities from the united states by condition assistance to foreign countries on them adopting the policy of disbanding unra and of course by prohibiting all us funds from going to unra like what is also again purported in this bill. it is in the underlying text of this bill not to put funds in there for a reason because we know there are serious problems with unra dating back many years just from their concent instruction of jew hate within the schools that they work into the participation of employees in the october 7 attacks. again to go back to that point that nobody in here will say that gaza is our ally, let's make the point that unra is essentially 30,000 palestinians that work for that so if we're giving funds to unra we're essentially paying the salary of our non- ally who was again at war with our ally.

that's my amendment number 22, i seek support in that. number 23, no funds for supporting a palestinian state. as we speak, the united nations is working on voting on recognizing gaza the palestinian people as a palestinian state. i'd like to add to this bill through amendment number 23 that no funds shall be used to support a palestinian state. again we would be looking at a state being created that the united states of america would immediately have to label a state sponsor of terror. that's what would become of a palestinian created state. we would have to call it that. why would we give one dollar and one sounds of support to an entity we would have to label a state sponsor of terrorism? i think it is sensical that we work to ensure that doesn't happen. amendment number 24, expedite funds to israel. making sure that from enactment of this bill should it be enacted that those funds reach israel no

later than 30 days. we've seen unfortunately very partisan support for israel, it dates back to the the previous conflict of rocket attacks being fired into israel that the german that was brought up before, chairman makes, foreign affairs committee literally worked to hold up arms transfers to israel in a time that they were working to defend themselves through the iron dome system from rocket attacks coming in yet again from gaza. it's well known that the chairman, ranking member of foreign affairs, also armed services they need to sign off on arms transfers, they were specifically working to not sign off on those so that in a time of war our ally was essentially being sanctioned and we see a bill where 40 members of the democrat party have signed on to not have arms transfers to israel essentially asking to sanction our ally against our non-ally who was at war and that can't take place. we need to ensure that should

this pass, those resources get there immediately. final amendment, number 62, do not build or rebuild gaza the american people have absolutely no business putting one dollar towards rebuilding a board in gaza and building anything and gaza. our resources do not belong building or rebuilding the infrastructure of our non-ally who conducted a genocide against our ally. and in that i thank the chairman for recognizing me for the time. >> thanks to the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today i have five amendments before the rules committee amending hr 836 which is the indopacific security supplemental. these amendments are all based on various unfunded requests from components of the department of defense within the indo pacific. these amendments have been crafted with security for the people of guam in mind. my first two amendments are

directly based upon us indo number one priority, that's the guam missile defense. as a supplemental, it will address missile defense in ukraine and israel. i am compelled to also advocate for additional fundings to protect the american homeland from missile defense threats. the first of these amendments supports the completion of the guam missile defense system providing my constituents with a 360 degree of coverage from inbound threats. now the second of these amendments is to fully fund the procurement needs of this system. and for the third amendment, as much of the indopacific supplemental focuses on submarine forces, i ask my colleagues to support my amendment funding critical repairs to the guam breakwater. this navy owned breakwater protects the port of guam, ensuring it is navigable for the

military and civilian vessels alike. this breakwater is one storm away from being destroyed, which would not only help commercial shipping to guam but bottle up the five fast attack submarines based in guam. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment for the sake of not only my constituents, but for the sake of the submarine forces in the western pacific. as noted, stor are a major issue for the military forces on guam. and last year there was an estimated $2 billion in damage to the military installations on guam. to get back on track, i proposed an amendment to provide increased planning and design funding for the typhoon recovery. finally, in times of crisis be it a typhoon or future conflict, the guam national guard will be present to protect the people of guam. my final amendment supports

unfunded priorities for the guam national guard. this amendment like others is focused on the security for the americans who live in the indo pacific and to directly defend the american homeland. i encourage my colleagues to not back down, to support my five amendments and to directly protect the american homeland and the indo pacific. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> anchored to the gentleman. >> congratulations on your chair. i would like to say a special thanks to all members. >> want to ask you to hold your applause until the end of the week. [laughter] >> my condolences, but i did want to say for the members, thank you. i know it's an enormous amount of time but it is important. and they recognize that and most of the members recognize that. thank you. and this is not in any way a promotion for me being on the committee. i offered today an amendment

to israel's security supplemental appropriations act 2024, reading through it, i know who wrote it, miss samantha powell. it was well written. it mentions ukraine and gaza. but as the ranking member pointed out, it's unknown of that division because that's the way it was written. it's a blank check. it can go anywhere. it can go to haiti, it can go to most countries. what i do know in war is this, or is ugly. but the objective of the war is win. and every war i fought over when we won, it was on the basis of surrender. in gaza, i would think the war would be one when unconditional surrender and return of hostages. i cannot in good faith aid an enemy before unconditional surrender and return of hostages, although this is an appropriations bill and i don't

have the latitude to put that in . i do have the latitude to strike it. because in good faith, i cannot provide aid to the enemy when i don't know how much money is going into it and it's intentionally written to a blank check. but this is what i do know, that any money that goes to gaza goes to hamas. and that i do know, and i think this whole member and body knows that. so i'm hoping for peace and i'm hoping for an unconditional surrender, i am hoping for the return of the hostages in good faith. but i ask for your support of this amendment because i don't think congress should be in the business of providing blank checks or aid to our enemies. with that, i yield. >> thanks to the gentleman. my apologies. mr. dunn, you are recognized.

>> thanks again to the rules committee and the members who have put forward very meaningful amendments to refined this legislation. we all recognize that america stands at a crossroads right now. we protect national security or do we allow our adversaries to take point on the world stage? not even a week ago, 300 weapons systems were launched with the intent to obliterate our closest ally in the middle east, israel. and it was not just the israeli civilians who were in harm's way, it was american colleagues like mine who have flown combat stories in the region. it was our british, french, and also arabic allies, jordan and saudi arabia who stood up and intercepted to a 99% efficiency kill rate. their biggest concern was that the success of last saturday in the safeguarding of israel may not ever be able to be replicated because we don't have the weapons systems necessary to be able to do this again. and so what i see as so important in this bill is

that we not only resupply but we reaffirm our commitment to our allies. as was highlighted earlier, the defense of our southern border must always be national security issue number one for the u.s. re but as we watch our -- but as we march out, we must be clear. not only supporting technology and weapons systems but holding the greatest threat actor in the region accountable here with iran. it's not the first time that they have used their proxies but launched a full-scale assault. the sanctions regime against iran today is largely unmitigated. $80 billion in elicit oil sales going back to fund both the proxies and the exact weapons systems that we saw attack all a result of a zero. sanction regime that's not been enforced. my amendment would directly require treasury to hunt down

and identify high value iranian assets that are helping to fund this and iran's campaign of terror around the world including those potentially threatening the u.s. today. we can either be as has been highlighted, a chamberlain or a churchill when it comes to addressing the threat from iran. not acting today would not only be a der elction of duty but would continue to put u.s. forces in harm's way including those three members we saw who lost their lives just earlier this year. second, the threat in europe and around the world is a direct threat not just from the kinetic strike caused by russia but of those who had fill the void, including those coming from china. we have to be able to ensure that any dollars going even through loans, we need to ensure we don't have a chinese asset that would be able to capitalize on that. i saw my following amendments would ensure another adversary is able to shut up shop in either ukraine, taiwan or israel. many american businesses have already in invested heavily in ukraine and stand ready to repair the critical

infrastructure but we cannot allow chinese entities like huawei or zte to be the beneficiaries of assets that were seized from russia from their attack and then repurposed for the reconstruction of that being done by chinese manufacturers. and this would help prioritize u.s. infrastructure as a key element for rebuilding the country and defending it. congress has bent huawei operations in 2019 and we must ensure that no taxpayer dollar goes to pay for a chinese company having a market advantage in this area. it only emboldens the ccp and would allow china to strategically position itself on nato's front door. so with that i want to thank my colleagues for bringing recommendations forward standing with our allies and protect our country both at our southern border and across the world. thank you very much for your time. i yield the remainder. >> thanks to all of our witnesses. without objection the following member statements will be and centered into the record -- will

be inserted into the record. >> thank you. i appreciate it. do you have something you wanted to add? >> careful what you wish for. i can always add something. sure, i will add something. i would say this. i've heard many of my democrat lleaes say about unra that quite literally, to quote them, and i think this is public, they would say it cannot defend unra, but we have to continue funding unra, that should not be said about anything relating to the spending of the dollars of the american people. i can't defend it but we are going to do it anyway. thank you for the question. >> anybody else? i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you all for testifying. i don't agree with everything that has been said today but i appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to come before the rules committee. with that i yield back. >> thank you. i yield to the general lady from

minnesota. >> thank you for taking the time. >> gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> thank you, representative. just wanted to make sure i understood your amendment properly. it is to prevent any humanitarian aid from going to people who are in palestine or gaza. >> when i looked at this bill, i think the bill is titled israel security supplemental appropriations act of 24 -- of 2024. the word gaza is used 11 times and 25 pages. i think israel is used 50 something times. if we are here to support israel, why are we focusing on gaza? if we are going to give $9 billion of the $26 billion of gaza, let us have a stand-alone bill and let the houseboat on that but i don't understand how we in the majority can confuse people

here. >> my question was, am i correct? >> that is correct. >> you don't want humanitarian aid in gaza. >> with respect to israel. >> ok so no aid to children -- is that correct? >> holds on. >> hold on. >> reclaiming my time. >> just like we did in afghanistan. that is the problem. >> thank you for clarifying that you don't want any aid to go to starving children. i yield back. >> let's try to go back one at a time so we can protect the record. the gentleman from georgia. >> mr. clyde, i want when they are also denying the export license on bullet proof vests and helmets and other defensive measures. are they still denying that as well? >> are you talking to the state of israel? >> yes. >> from my knowledge, i don't

think they have approved anything with regard to small arms and those things associated with small arms to the state of israel. i think it's atrocious. i think it shows that we truly don't support israel because actions speak louder than words. and they say one thing and they do something completely different. so thank you for the question. >> my point is, they are even denying the exporting of bulletproof vests and helmets and other things that are purely defensive in nature. i yield. >> thank you. i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> i think the chairman and witnesses for their testimony and submitting their amendments. i do think some of the amendments are serious efforts at legislating, even if some may see it differently. i want to zero in on one point that mr. nields made. which is this.

testifying to this committee that because one word appears multiple times in the legislation and intimating that that is evidence that this bill does not support our ally, israel, is intellectually dishonest. and if you look, i'll just give you an example. page 24, section 404, because you took great umbrage of any reference to gaza and this bill. you said 11 times. that is mentioned. ok. section 404. not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this act, the secretary of state in consultation with the heads of other relevant federal agencies as appropriate shall brief the appropriate congressional committees and classified form of necessary on the status and welfare of hostages being held in gaza. i think that's an important provision.

i suspect you'd agree with me. i hope you'd agree with me that maybe that is a classified briefing that members of this body should -- >> after what i have seen with this at ministration and the way i've acted -- they've acted, i can trust this at ministration or government doing anything properly. >> again what i would simple suggest to you, this is why i say this. i appreciate the secretary's point about those of us serving on the rules committee, republican and democratic members. it's a serious committee, many of your colleagues i think have made serious attempts to try to amend this legislation. and i'm simply suggesting that coming in and declaring that because a bill references a word 11 times without actually delving into the particular provisions in this case actually ensuring we are briefed by the relevant intelligence agencies on getting the hostages released. i'm not asking you a question. i'm making a statement. on getting the hostages released, to me, that is

important, i suspect most of our colleagues including in your caucus will agree with me. your amendment, and again this relates directly to the amendment mr. nields made, while i disagree with your mama, you have made the case at on page 11 the provisioning of humanitarian aid, it is not delineated specifically as to where the humanitarian aid is ultimately going. international disaster assistance in terms of you -- some of it may be a portion to sit down, the crisis and sit down, as well as addressing those civilians in gaza. and your point is you would like -- i understand your argument. even though i disagree with it. that is very different than the argument mr. nields has made which is suggesting that on page 11 even though it does not suggest that all of the provisioning of aid in those two different buckets is going to a particular place that it

somehow is. that's not what the text of the bill says. your amendments are in direct conflict with each other. i said although i disagree with your amendment, i do think you are making a good-faith argument that you believe is right even if i disagree with it. i will yield back to the chairman. >> we go to the gentleman from kentucky for any questions he may have. >> i have no questions. i yield back. >> the gentleman from new york. -- >> i would like to yield to mr. neal's. >> i just think when you title, and this is all about and israel package and aid to israel and we are talking about a $9 billion package -- you are saying it is not going to gaza. you take the $9 billion just add

it to israel. if you want to put a bill out there that says -- let's give raza $9 billion also, then get a bill out there and let those vote on it but to throw this $9 billion to gaza, i will not support this and i might be willing to say that i'm not going to vote for the rule either. >> i yield back. >> i see no further questions. i would like to thank the witnesses for your testimony and you are excused. >> we want to keep things moving so we are going to call up -- all right -- we are going to keep things moving and, dr. mccormick, mr. ogle.

we are going to get mr. making, dr. mccormick, chairman arrington and then, ms. ghana, you can come up. >> [inaudible] >> it is indeed. are you ready? >> let me see if i have the microphone on. did i push the right button? am i on. the red light is on p all right. some good news is that the former budget director under president 45 has found $90 billion that is laying in the american rescuevirus, state covd -- $90 billion remains unobligated. it is interesting that when you look at the misuse, when last

year we suspended the emergency on covid, that is what this fund was set up for, 300 $50 billion total and now we still have $90 billion. it is interesting what some of this funding is being utilized for if we don't take advantage of sending it to need versus what i consider waste. 31,000 was sent to arizona for art, music and dance classes serving asylum-seekers. kind of interesting. since 2021, it has been abused left and right. circuses, rodeo, i don't have any problem with rodeo but i don't know if this is the time we need to be spending money on rodeos. let me give you one more glaring misuse, the state of washington spent $340 million to send $1000

checks to the illegal aliens. we hundred $40 million total cost, that is three and a 40,000 illegal, undocumented individuals received $1000 checks that went through this fund labeled the american rescue moneys. i think most americans would say that is pure waste. so, paul winfrey, my staff visited him today and he said there is $90 billion that can be captured out of this. you look at the funding for israel, taiwan and ukraine, there is 96. i think it makes more than enough sense and we would be wise to stop you be -- the abuse of this biden slush fund and start using it for better purposes. that would pertain to amendment number 16 in relation to taiwan as an offset and then number 42 in relation to israel as an offset and amendment number 74

as a pay for for ukraine. and mr. chairman, i would then want to move towards amendment number 77 and i would like to obtain support for her. it simply says that in the last several months we got word that there were 14 special forces in ukraine while this administration is assuring people that there are no troops in ukraine. amendment number 77, hr 8035 says that we will get an accounting as to whether or not the true number of u.s. troops that are in ukraine and i would encourage support for both and i appreciate the time you have given me. >> the gentleman yields back. you are recognized for your amendments. >> i want to thank you all for being here and i know this is a laborious process. mr. chairman, congratulations. i have 18 amendments but i will hit them weekly out of respect

for your time and everyone else's. as it pertains to the indo pacific, number eight, currently there is a provision where that money can be moved away from taiwan to ukraine. number nine, the sect of -- the sec def. number 10, create or procure anything that inaccurately depicts the occupation of tibet. and we are pushing back against the chinese aggression in the region which is important. number 11 prohibits the use for qatar made available for major non-nato allies in consequence of the qatar's government's failure to release hostages and for subsidizing the murder of

1200 is really scared number 18, it prohibits visas to chinese nationals that are currently being abused by chinese investors to shortcut and get citizenship in our country. number 17 calls for the full diplomatic relations with taiwan. as we jump to israel, number eight provides that the use of funds to be made available for israel to obtain the f-22 in defense of its sovereignty and borders. number 32, the funds the amendment that prohibits the transfer of the f-22 to any country dating back to the department of defense is creation act of 1998. number nine, eliminating funding for the office of palestinian affairs. number 10, prohibits the use of funds in this bill from going to maintain cutter's major nonmajor

nato status. i understand that cutter claims -- qatar claims neutrality but we know they tend to play on both sides of the fence and i personally believe they have a responsibility and culpability for what happened on october 7. number 20 prohibits any funds from being made available to the palestinian liberation organization, the palestinian authority or any palestinian administered areas in the gaza strip. 49 prohibits funds from being used in contravention of israel's administration of the judea and samaria areas. number 51 prohibits the use of funds for the special representative for palestinian affairs. this is an unnecessary position and a position made by the biden administration to further his agenda of a palestinian state. number 52 enables funds to be used to improve approve the sale or license of -- to israel. jumping to ukraine, number two

prohibits the use of funds to arm, train or otherwise assist the neo-nazi battalion. it's successor, the assault brigade or any other successor or organization. i think we can all agree that what happened on october 7 was an atrocity, it was an act of war and i do have concerns that the aid package to ukraine is in essence propping up neo-nazis in europe. and in the event there is a solution or path forward, they may find themselves having a role in the ukrainian government and again we end up -- we will have to deal with that in the long-term. number three, prohibits funds to provide arms, training or other assistance that -- to the russian volunteer corps. number four. and i can be used later by congress as some sort of reckoning.

as it pertains to the ukrainian government. number 73 prohibits the use of funds to provide targeting assistance to ukraine. thank you for your indulgence and i yield back. i think the gentleman. the gentleman from north george's recognize next. >> thank you, dr. chair. chairman burgess, ranking member, members of the committee thank you for allowing me to testify my amendment to ukraine supplemental is a -- act. i have submitted a handful of amendments to the bill i want to focus on my amendments to the ukraine supplemental aid bill. i am a strong supporter of assistance to ukraine in their fight against russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion. for ukraine to win this war, 100% of the aid we provide must reach its intended destination and serve its intended purpose. we have an obligation to the

american people they demonstrate the integrity of our assistance to ukraine, and failure to do so could cause the american people to possibly lose confidence in these efforts which would only benefit vladimir putin. we owe it to the american taxpayer and our ukrainian partners to exert strict oversight. the inspector general for the department of defense, state and usaid coordinate to conduct this vital oversight but they need more help here my amendment based on the ukraine eight oversight act that i introduced last year would get the three oig's the specific hiring authority that they need to execute their oversight mission. under current law the inspector general's can only obtain this flexible hiring authority if the u.s. is in an active state of war. we need to get them this authority now and without delay. in closing, my amendment will improve the oversight of u.s.

assistance to ukraine with -- without creating more bureaucracy or more government. thank you for your time and i humbly request your support to make this amendment in order. and i yield. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> the great state of texas, mr. chairman. as a fellow texan and member of the budget committee, maybe i will have more favorable consideration for this. -- this commonsense amendment to pay for the things that we think are important and are priorities to our country. let me say a policymaking process that gives no consideration for paying for things is not only irresponsible, it is irrational. and this irrational process by which we make decisions on behalf of the american people to

create more government without paying for it, and i should say, by thrusting the cost on the backs of our children rather than taking either money out of the pockets of our citizens right here, right now or cutting some program or some part of the government right here right now is the root cause of our reckless spending and unsustainable debt. period. fall stop. -- full stop. if we were forced by a balanced budget amendment or some mechanism to consider the cost i suspect, mr. chairman that we would have half the government we have now, more freedom, more state and local decision-making instead of everything being decided here and we would have a brighter future for our children but here we are. so, can we decide together, can we make a pact as americans concerned about the future and

with the context of the $34 trillion debt and climbing, the highest level of debt surpassing world war ii and we are in relative peace and prosperity, a nation that will add $20 trillion in additional debt over the next 10 years, and a country paying $.62 on every dollar just to service the interest on the debt. to suggest our physical health is in decline is an understatement. to suggest that our balance sheet is upside down and the liabilities over the next few years is not a threat not only to our economy and security but america's leadership in the world and yes, i think the biggest threat to the future of america and my children's future in this country. so with that, -- so with that wind up, let me suggest to those who believe that this security

package is in the best interest of the american people, that we should also consider that peace through strength is not only about military prowess and a foreign-policy posture, it is about the strength of our balance sheet. it is about physical economic strength which is the underpinnings of all of this. we don't get to make these decisions if we bankrupt the country. i don't think we have ever been in such a tenable situation and i'm here to sound the alarm and appeal to the morality of our great leaders on this rules committee. pay for it. and i've got one right here, bipartisan, provision that has been offered under the obama administration and president obama's budget and it in fact is in the budget that we passed out of committee most recently to reverse the curse for saving this country and putting it on a

path to balance. and it is site neutral payments, mr. chairman you know this better than anyone else but what is happening today, democrat friends and republican colleagues is that we are paying hospitals more to provide the same service with the same outcome for dots with the same equipment and often the same physicians and mid-level's for outpatient procedure that we pay less for -- that is 150 billion dollars in savings. it seems pretty straightforward that we could offer up something that not only will pay for this entire security package and put a down payment of $50 billion to reduce the deficit that is exploding, but would also address our broken health care system. it would reverse the consolidation of doctors aligning with hospitals. we get less choices.

seniors pay more money for deductibles and premiums. this is a winner winner chicken dinner that we say back in lubbock, america and i can't imagine why this bright august group of proud americans would not accept this in good faith and in order as an amendment and that is my proposal, mr. chairman. i mr. chairman, lastly, alex azar and kathleen sebelius, two former secretaries of health and human services here for our great country from different administrations, one from prompt and one from obama, wrote an op-ed just today about this very issue supporting site neutral payments as a health care reform. with that, i thank you for your generous time and i implore you to consider accepting this amendment. >> at the risk of my own self

aggrandizement, that op-ed came about after i seriously queried the current secretary of health and human services yesterday in his part of our budget hearing in energy and commerce so maybe we are on the road to something but we will see. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to my colleagues for going through all of these. i know it is a tremendous amount of work and we have some serious decisions ahead of us so i appreciate everyone's consideration. i'm going to keep it short and simple. i have one amendment to offer here today. you know -- keeping it simple. we obviously all agree that this is a pretty substantial package. 95 billion dollars being considered in foreign assistance and over the last few years since russia's invasion of ukraine, the u.s. has contributed more than 67 billion

dollars to ukraine in its fight against russia, far more than that, actually. i know there has been a lengthy discussion about the type of aid and while, by and large, there is agreement on defense-related aid, there is one area that i think deserves far more consideration and scrutiny. my amendment, amendment number 14, would simply strike the bilateral economic assistance account in this bill. americans, every single one of us, have constituents back home trying to make decisions between gas and groceries. we are seeing reports where our treasury department is having an issue placing bonds. we are having challenges here at home that americans quite simply cannot afford to bear the brunt of those on top of that of a nation abroad.

in the interest of keeping it short and sweet, i want to thank my colleagues who i think represent a pretty diverse cross-section of the conference, congresswoman vice, congressman being and congressman donald for supporting me and this amendment. i think this is a common sense approach to pair this effort down. with that i hope and encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to strike economic aid under this package. thank you. i yield. >> thank you to the gentlelady. the gentleman from arizona is recognized >> i will not be as brief as she is, i have five. this is amendment 65 and 103 and 102. we will start with 45. this is a reform that basically in the funding reform that describes what -- it forms a

statutory order against the contingency fund and the operations. until we establish a statutory definition for emergency were funding, and those you know i am fanatic about this, about the emergency aspect because of the vice chair complications it has for us and it has not been part of our formal budgetary process. 46, no funding for ukraine until we get all -- until the president has initiated his talks in the area and i think this is something that most of us believe that the war in ukraine is not going well cared have seen a lot of the ukrainian people you -- lose their lives. and i think we should be initiating the peace process.

when i ask ukraine what peace looks like they say they want to get crimea back. folks, crimea is never coming back. crimea has opted to be part of russia. i think there is little deliberation on that. i'm sorry, i'm a little disgruntled because -- gosar 102 prevents funding from any of the concealment or classification of the records regarding the north street pipeline explosions. it is probably one of the largest environmental impacts particularly in the ocean that we have ever seen. i think we have to understand this -- have this to understand the ramifications. the finger is pointing at us. 103, prevent any of the funding from being utilized to conceal or classify the information on

an american citizen and journalist who printed only stuff that the ukrainian government did not like. he was in prison, he was tortured and he died. >> [indiscernible] >> 64 states that none of the funds made available by this act could be used to facilitate the use of force against iran including the deployments of forward operations in iraq and syria. absent expressed authorization from congress. so without the consent of congress, we cannot move forward. i think this is constitutionally very adept and i want to make sure that we have congress going along with this. war is ugly and it should be done fast -- it should be very

surgical like but congress has to be part of the discussion. we have to make these in order so i appreciate this conversation. >> does the gentleman yelled back? >> yes. -- yield back. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, let me thank kat who had my amendment -- i offer up number 40 which eliminates at the president's ability to waive the cost-sharing requirement and i think we had discussed about that earlier. and then, number 34, the strengths -- the strikes the ability of the presidents cancellation of ukraine's indebtedness. and with that, i yield back. >> i want to thank all of our

witnesses for presenting their amendments. i see no questions so i will go to the done one for mr. -- from massachusetts. >> i don't agree with what everyone has it but i won't belabor it by asking questions so i yield back. >> the gentleman from kentucky. >> i have no questions. >> the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from south carolina. again, i want to thank this panel for spending so much time with us and sharing your amendments. i want to thank you for bringing up the fact that secretary azar and the other agreed with me when i questioned the secretary yesterday. maybe it is at the start of something. thank you, this panel is excused.

>> [indiscernible conversations] >> you>> are there any other members seeking to testify under the bills that we have had under consideration? seeing none, this closes the hearing. >> i was hoping that marjorie

taylor greene would come in and talk about her space laser amendment. >> without objection, the committee stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> and got -- members have been in recess for several hours now as leaders try to figure out a path forward. they have been working on four

bills that would -- that would provide u.s. military aid to ukraine, israel and taiwan as well as russian assets to repay the aid to ukraine. in the last few hours of the freedom caucus released a statement encouraging members to vote against the role. the washington times is reporting that representatives chip roy of texas, ralph norman of south carolina and the official from kentucky have threatened a vote against the bill if the -- if it makes it to the floor. michael lawler commented on the situation saying the three members are accused of supporting the agenda and should resign from the committee immediately and if they should refuse they should be removed immediately. we will continue to wait on capitol hill for more live house rules coverage but until then the full house worked on a measure condemning iran's airstrikes on israel over the weekend. this eventually passed by a vote of